John Hutton: I am aware of my hon. Friend's role on the Select Committee, and I remember clearly the day that I gave evidence to it. We have already published the estimates of the cost of a full compensation scheme, which we have made available to the House and outside. It would cost significantly more thanthe £2.5 billion that we have pledged to it. The Government have tried hard to be supportive of those who have lost the most, but we must also be mindful that we are using public resources in a compensation scheme, so we have to balance what is fair to the taxpayer with what is fair to those who have lost the most. We have tried hard to strike the right balance.

Philip Hollobone: It is estimated that, in the year to March 2006, some£770 million of housing benefit was overpaid, almost £200 million of which was due to official error. How does the Minister intend to tackle that problem?

Frank Field: What lessonsdo the Government draw from the fact that although 2.5 million new jobs have been created since they were elected, many have been filled by immigrants coming here and wishing to work? Given the stubbornness of youth unemployment in London with regard to moving downwards, might not the Government consider time-limiting benefit?

Jim Murphy: Given his experience in government at the Department for Work and Pensions and his more recent experience, my right hon. Friend is retaining a close interest in the welfare-to-work review, and he acknowledges that there has been real progress. As he said, 2.5 million more people are in work—and29 million people are now in work in the UK.
	I should add that less than 1 per cent. of those currently in our labour market are migrants from eastern Europe, although we would not get that impression from reading some of the popular press. There are real challenges, which are the subject of our ongoing long-term welfare review, in relation to what more we can do to support UK-born citizens develop their skills in connection with the labour market. I do not want to pre-empt the outcome of the review currently being undertaken by David Freud.

Jim Murphy: We are always considering ways to reduce the barriers to the labour market for all sortsof our customers, regardless of their circumstances, background, disability, skills level, age or place of abode in the United Kingdom. One of the issues is how we overcome the multiple labour market disadvantages faced by some of the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine.
	Without wishing to repeat the point that I offered in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I should add that we are awaiting the outcome of David Freud's review on the long-term challenges of welfare to work. We can then have a sensible conversation about some of the points that the hon. Gentleman has raised, entirely reasonably, this afternoon.

James McGovern: I thank the Minister for that response, and for his visit to Dundee 10 days ago to see the progress being made by the Dundee city strategy.Since 2001, Dundee has achieved employment growth of between 2 and 4.5 per cent. Credit for that must be given to Dundee city council, the Scottish Executive and the Government in Westminster, all of whichare, of course, Labour led. Will he confirm his Department's continued support for the Dundee city strategy in providing new skills, new training and new jobs to maintain Dundee's prosperity and growth?

James Plaskitt: The Government published their error reduction strategy on 24 January. Building on our success in reducing fraud losses to their lowest ever recorded level, that strategy sets out a comprehensive and ambitious plan for reducing errorin the benefits system by £1 billion over the nextfive years.

Eric Illsley: Can my hon. Friend tell me whether that initiative will extend to local authorities, where calculations are made in respect of housing benefit and council tax benefit? Their success rate is 80 per cent., so 20 per cent.of decisions made on those benefits are wrong. On Friday, the disability information advice line in my constituency raised with me the case of a housing benefit calculation whereby for the past six years a constituent of mine was paid £30 a week when she should have been paid £46 a week. That error was twice compounded by supervisory decisions. Will there be an initiative to deal with local authority calculations as well?

James Plaskitt: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. I want to reassure him that in devising the strategy published last week, staff in the Department worked closely with staff in local authorities. He is quite right that there are many linked decisions by the Department and local authorities, and the key to reducing error is to have more data-sharing in the system. That is a crucial part of the strategy, and we are already putting in place an IT platform that allows DWP data to be transferred directly to local authority offices on a weekly basis.

David Ruffley: Overpayments due to fraud and error in the four major benefits total a staggering £6 billion in the past four years. Overpayments due to customer confusion areup 50 per cent. in the past nine years, and last year alone, underpayments totalled nearly £1 billion, with £0.25 billion underpaid to disabled families. We all agree that we need a simpler, fairer system, so will Ministers recommit today to cutting complexity, and will they explain to the House why they allocated only five full-time staff to the benefit simplification unit and only two full-time staff to the error taskforce?

James Plaskitt: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman should choose to decry the work of those departments, because the benefit simplification unit has been in place since January 2006 and promotes best practice across the system. It has already achieved simplifications to the social fund, and it has aligned capital limits across all working-age benefits. The small team to which he referred is responsible for revoking 200 statutory instruments, thereby simplifying the benefits system. May I remind him of the record? Fraud is at its lowest ever recorded level, and it is half the 1997 level. It was cut by a further £100 millionjust last year, and error was reduced last year by£100 million. Sanctions and prosecutions have increased fivefold since 1997, and our strategy is broadly endorsed by the National Audit Office, so Ican tell the hon. Gentleman better my grip thanhis lip.

Julie Kirkbride: In answer to the question, the Secretary of State said that he would allow parents with care to ask for the write-off of debt for parents without care under the new rules that he intends to bring in. Will that only be in cases where the couple has come back together, or will that be possible in all cases? Also, has he considered the impact on some parents with care who might be threatened or bullied by their ex-partner into taking up that measure?

James Purnell: The Government have put in place a range of measures to help older people to remain in, or return to, work. Since 1997, the employment rate of people aged 50 to 69 has increased by 6.7 per cent. We are tackling age discrimination through our "Age Positive" campaign, which promotes good practice and the benefits ofan age-diverse work force to employers. Last October, we brought the age regulations into force, which introduced a default retirement age of 65, together with a right for employees to request to work beyond this age. We will be monitoring those regulations' effect on the employment of older workers.

Danny Alexander: In tackling the problems of age-related discrimination in employment in the welcome way that the Minister describes, will he also pay particular attention to the need to tackle disability discrimination in employment? The older that someone gets, the more likely they are to be disabled, and disability discrimination can often be a major reason that older workers are not as welcome in the work place as younger ones. Will he make sure that, in additionto the measures he has taken to deal with age discrimination, there are publicity campaigns aimed at disability discrimination among employers?

James Purnell: We obviously have to tackle discrimination wherever it happens and the pathways to work programme will help people in that situation, and Jobcentre Plus can help people with a rangeof measures whether their issues are to do with occupational health or disability more generally.

Anne McGuire: We agree that the welfare system should be simpler, more transparent and accessible for all our customers, not least for disabled people. For those with health problems and disabilities, the new employment and support allowance will integrate into a single structure both earnings replacement and income related benefits.

Jack Straw: I have great regard for Lord Lester of Herne Hill—I am very happy to revisit what he said—but this is an issue on which senior officers and others in the Ministry of Defence are anxious, not because they want to bypass Parliament's decisions, but because they do not want to get into the situation that other European countries have got into and which I have seen, where there is amendment to the rules of engagement by the elected Parliament. That can lead to risible circumstances—for example, some members of the NATO international security assistance force cannot do their job—so we must be careful. When we are asking our armed forces to put their lives in harms way in a number of theatres, we must be very careful to ensure that we take them with us, and that is something that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is very anxious about.

Shailesh Vara: This matter of war touches on the prerogative powers of Ministers and, as such, addresses the crucial issue of the balance of power between the Government and Parliament. For example, last week, air passenger duty was doubled without any approval from Parliament. What precisely is the Leader of the House doing to restore the balance of power between Parliament and the Government and to ensure that we, the elected representatives, can effectively speak up in the Chamber for the British people?

David Miliband: With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the outbreak of avian influenza in Suffolk. Just after5 pm on Thursday 1 February, the state veterinary service was contacted by a private vet who suspected an avian notifiable disease at a poultry farm in Suffolk. The farm near Upper Holton held 159,000 turkeys housed in 22 sheds. The vet raised concerns because deaths were taking place in one shed, containing 7,000 birds, beyond the normal frequency and rate.
	My Department promptly enforced legal restrictions on the farm, so that no birds, people or equipment could move off those premises, preventing any possible spread of the disease. Arrangements were quickly made for a veterinary officer from the local animal health office to inspect the premises and take samples for testing by the Veterinary Laboratories Agency in Weybridge, Surrey.
	Preliminary results were received late Friday evening indicating the presence of avian influenza of the H5 strain. At that stage, the pathogenicity of the virus was not known. My Department issued a press notice and alerted the poultry industry, stakeholders and the European Commission. In line with contingency planning arrangements, local and national disease control centres were established.
	Further tests were carried out overnight, and based on the results received on Saturday morning, Fred Landeg, the deputy chief veterinary officer, confirmed the presence of H5N1 avian influenza. We imposed a 3 km protection zone and 10 km surveillance zone around the infected premises, to restrict movements of poultry and require their isolation from wild birds in those areas. In addition, we banned all bird gatherings—including fairs, markets, shows and races—across England, Scotland and Wales. The Great Britain poultry register was used to issue text alerts to all those registered.
	By Saturday afternoon, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency had completed further tests and were able to confirm that this was the highly pathogenic H5N1 Asian strain, which has spread widely in recent years. My officials had been working closely with our established group of ornithological experts to establish what a proportionate and risk-based response wouldbe to such a finding. Based on their advice, my Department imposed a wider restricted zone covering east Suffolk and south-east Norfolk, an area of about 2,090 sq km. Within that zone, we are requiring poultry and other captive birds to be housed or, if that is not possible, to be isolated from contact with wild birds. The Opposition and local MPs were kept informed by my hon. Friend the Minister for Local Environment, Marine and Animal Welfare.
	On the infected premises, the humane slaughter of all the remaining birds began on Saturday under the supervision of the state veterinary service—once the Health Protection Agency had taken all necessary steps, through medication and protective clothing, to assure the health and safety of those carrying out that work. I attended a meeting of the civil contingencies committee—known as Cobra—this morning and can report to the House that we expect the culling to be completed today. Once the birds are slaughtered, the carcases are being transported under escort in sealed leak-proof lorries to a plant in Staffordshire where they are being rendered. Rendering involves the crushing and grinding of carcases, followed by heat treatment in a sealed vessel to reduce the moisture content and to kill micro-organisms. The leftover product from the rendering of the birds is then incinerated to ensure total destruction. There is full protection for workers at the site and the general public in the surrounding area.
	The Department of Health and the Health Protection Agency have been fully involved in our response throughout. All the people involved have been issued with personal protection equipment and are being offered the antiviral drug Tamiflu and seasonal human flu vaccination. In addition, seasonal flu vaccination has been available for poultry workers since early January. The risk to the general public is judged by health experts to be negligible. In particular, the Food Standards Agency advises that there is no risk in eating any sort of properly-cooked poultry, including turkey, and eggs.
	At this stage, we do not know how the disease arrived in Suffolk. A full epidemiological report will be produced by our experts as soon as possible and made publicly available. The state veterinary service is carrying out rapid and urgent investigations both on the infected premises themselves and by testing poultry farms and collecting dead wild birds in the protection and surveillance zones. Outside the restricted zones, our programme of wild bird surveillance continues, with 4,000 birds having been tested in the last five months alone. I urge keepers of birds to be vigilant and to exercise good biosecurity. In particular, it is important that they act quickly and contact their local animal health office if they suspect disease.
	From Friday afternoon, we have been working with the European Commission and leaders of the poultry industry and retail organisations, consulting them on the decisions that we have been taking and jointly tackling practical issues as they arise. That is in addition to my Department's regular communications with the wider poultry stakeholder community through e-mail, telephone conferencing and the website. We have also been in direct contact with poultry keepers using the text messaging system of the Great Britain poultry register. Further written communication will be issued today.
	Experience from previous outbreaks in Europe, and in this country in the past, has shown that in all cases where disease was found in domestic poultry, the rapid action taken to restrict movements, to house birds and, above all, to cull all the birds on the infected premises, has eradicated the disease without further spread. I am satisfied that the response in this case has been rapid, well co-ordinated and appropriate. Contingency planning arrangements have been developed over the last five years in an open way. The first avian influenza specific plan was published in March 2004. These plans are updated on a regular basis—most recently in the updated plan that was published last December and which is available on the web—and thus far they have proven their worth. Our goals in this case are clear: to stamp out the disease, to protect public health, to protect animal health and welfare, and to regain disease-free status for the UK. I would like to record my thanks to all those who have worked so hard since Thursday evening from across Departments, delivery partners and the poultry industry, at the local, regional and national level, to help to achieve those goals as soon as possible.

Peter Ainsworth: I thank the Secretary of State for the statement and for advance sight of it. I also thank him for the open and responsible way in which he and his Ministers have kept the Opposition informed of progress and have kept in touch with local Members. Clearly, this is a blow to the poultry industry, but it is vital that it does not become a crisis. I agree with the Secretary of State's four goals, set out at the end of his statement, and I suggest one more: to reassure the public that eating poultry is entirely safe. Is he in touch with retailers, for example, about that?
	I join the Secretary of State in thanking all those involved in handling this problem for their hard and, no doubt in some cases, distressing work. Will he join me in congratulating Suffolk police, Suffolk county council and Waveney district council on demonstrating a high level of co-operation and on their efficient response to the problem?
	The Government's chief scientist has said that we are better prepared for an outbreak of avian flu than any other nation. Bernard Matthews has also said that it works to the highest levels of biosecurity. Does that not make the causes of the outbreak all the more puzzling? Does not the Secretary of State share my concern that one of his Ministers has already said that we may never know the exact cause? Does it not make it extremely difficult to know whether the Government are taking appropriate action to prevent further outbreaks if we do not know how the disease got here in the first place?
	It has been suggested that the outbreak may be related to wild birds, but has there been any increase in the number of dead birds being reported in the last five months? What plans does the Secretary of State have to step up the surveillance efforts? Does he think it purely a coincidence that a Bernard Matthews-owned farmin Hungary should recently have been hit by H5NI? What steps is he taking to eliminate the Hungarian connection from the inquiries?
	The right hon. Gentleman states that following the notification to the state veterinary service on 1 February, arrangements were quickly made for a veterinary officer to attend and take samples. Will he be more specific as to what "quickly" means here—within a couple of hours or the following day?
	The Secretary of State will be aware that in this part of Suffolk there are many people who keep a few chickens on their land. Is he satisfied that they are receiving timely and accurate information about what to do? What proportion of the total number of UK poultry owners does he believe is on the Great Britain poultry register? What stocks of H5N1 vaccination for humans do the Government currently possess? Health Ministers say that those may be used to vaccinate front-line health workers. What plans does he have to make the vaccine available to poultry workers who may be even more in the front line? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the arrangements for removing the culled animals and transporting them for disposal and rendering are sufficiently biosecure?
	We all hope that the market for poultry products will not be affected by these events, but in the case of adverse market impacts, will the Secretary of State draw down the UK's entitlement to EU support funding—something of great importance to an already beleaguered industry? What measures is the right hon. Gentleman taking to ensure that UK poultry exports will not be adversely affected? I have already seen a report that Japan has imposed a temporary ban on the imports of UK poultry products.
	Thus far, we support the Government and their agencies, the police and local authorities who are working so hard to tackle this outbreak. We extend our sympathy to poultry workers, who naturally voice concerns about their jobs and their welfare. Above all, we need an answer to the question, how exactly did this disease get here?

David Miliband: I very much appreciate the tone of the hon. Member's remarks. His questions are wholly legitimate, and I shall try to go through them carefully.
	The question of reassurance for the public is obviously an important one. We are conscious that messages have to be clear, and we have been trying to work with the retail industry and the poultry sector to give clear and consistent messages. Fortunately, we live in an age when information is widely available through the internet and other sources. I fully endorse the hon. Gentleman's thanks to the long list of public servants who have been involved at all levels, and to people in private industry who have worked very hard with us in this effort.
	One of the hon. Gentleman's main points was about the causes of the outbreak, and he is absolutely rightto say that getting to the root of it is a high priority. That is one reason why we have not dismissed any suggestions; we are pursuing all possible avenues of inquiry. It remains most likely that at the root of the problem there is a link with the wild bird population, but that does not mean that we should not pursue other avenues in a serious way, with the greatest of speed, and we are doing so. I will be happy to keep thehon. Gentleman and the House informed as the investigations by officials continue.
	The hon. Gentleman asked whether "quickly" meant the following day. It certainly did not; as I said in my statement, as soon as the state veterinary service was informed of the difficulties, restrictions were immediately imposed, and the contingency plan went into action. He asked about the poultry register, and I am pleased to have this opportunity to tell the House, and hopefully through the House people more widely, that although there is a requirement on all those who own more than 50 poultry birds to register on the GB poultry register, it is open to all those with a smaller number of poultry birds to do so. If they do, they can avail themselves of the information that is quickly sent to all those on the register, and that would certainly be excellent. I do not have the figure that the hon. Gentleman asked for on the percentage of poultry owners who are registered, because, almost by definition, if they are not registered, we do not know whether they are there. We are confident that at least 95 per cent. of British poultry is on the register. However, I understand his point, and from my point of view, the more people who register the better.
	I think that the hon. Gentleman may have missed something in my statement; I thought that I had made it absolutely clear that the Tamiflu vaccine was already available for poultry workers. We believe that that is the right approach, when combined with the wearing of protective clothing, which all our experts say is the most important measure, and the first line of defence. I am pleased to say that we are working with the trade unions on that, too. On compensation, I hope that he will understand when I say that our first priority has been to clamp down on the current outbreak, but of course we are keeping all options open in respect of future compensation arrangements.
	On exports, the most important thing that we can do is act in accordance with our plan, which is widely recognised as being of a very high standard. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Japanese example, which I have heard about. I think that I am right in saying that the industry's export value is about £375 million to £377 million a year. The EU content of that is about £280 to £290 million a year, so our first priority has been to ensure a secure line with the European Commission, and that has been done. Obviously we are working with those in Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts around the world to ensure that the message goes out clearly that we have very high standards, that we take the issue extremely seriously, and that we will stamp out the problem.

David Miliband: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making his points. It might help the whole House if I gave the figures for the deaths in the shed in question on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, which were given to me in percentage terms just before I came to the House. On Tuesday, the figure was 1 per cent., on Wednesday 3.6 per cent., and on Thursday 16 per cent. It was the leap to 16 per cent. that led the local vet, quite professionally and properly, to alert the state veterinary service. I am nervous of saying that there should be one figure below which everything is fine, and above which we would trigger full battle plans. In this case, the evidence presented to me shows that local officials and vets have acted in an extremely professional way, and that the leap from3.6 per cent. to 16 per cent. rightly triggered concern.
	My hon. Friend asked about the length of time beyond which we would be able to lift the restrictions. The requirement is 30 days and we will be seeking to achieve that as soon as possible.

Christopher Huhne: My thanks to the Secretary of State for keeping us informed and for an early sight of the statement.
	A number of allegations have been made that factory farming may have been a contributory cause, based on research in Canada and on some of the findings of the Food and Agriculture Organisation. Will he comment on that?
	Turning to the Government's immediate reaction, will he explain a little more clearly what appears to have been a delay? The reporting of private vets has been mentioned. Has the Department issued guidance that sets out to private vets an indication of when they can be expected to report to the state veterinary service? According to the Minister of State, tests were not performed on Thursday evening. Why? Why did we have to wait until Saturday for the test results, given that presumably every hour is crucial when facing such a highly pathogenic outbreak?
	Looking beyond the immediate response, will the Secretary of State comment on compensation for farmers and confirm that it will be forthcoming in this case under schedule 3 of the Animal Health Act 1981? I note that David Nabarro, head of the UN department co-ordinating the global efforts against bird flu, has warned us to expect more outbreaks in the coming months. What research have the Government undertaken into bird vaccines after the Cellardyke swan case, after which Sir David King, chief scientific officer to the Government said,
	"The disadvantages of using the current vaccines far outweigh the potential benefits."?
	Is that still the Government's judgment?
	Is it not perverse that while the Department's own website argues that this year's emergency budget cuts were in part caused by additional bird flu spending, the impact of the cuts will fall in part on the Veterinary Laboratories Agency, which has lost £2.4 million in this financial year, and the SVS, which has lost £3 million? Is that not a short-sighted cut that the Secretary of State should now regret?

David Miliband: The hon. Gentleman asked about factory farming—his words, not mine. We have no evidence that the occurrence was linked to that.
	The hon. Gentleman asked several questions about delay without realising or pinpointing what delays he was talking about. I thought my statement made it absolutely clear that as soon as the SVS had been notified, the process set out in the contingency plan—it is available to him, to other hon. Members andto members of the public—was set in motion. By21.00 hours on Friday, preliminary test results revealed that it was the H5 avian flu. It is rather unfair of the hon. Gentleman—not to me, but to the officials who have been working at the Weighbridge laboratory—to suggest that they were somehow dilatory or not on the case. They worked very hard with the samples delivered to them. By Friday morning, there was a further development. By Friday afternoon, we had confirmation of the Asian link. On reflection the hon. Gentleman might want to recognise the hard work of these public officials, rather than attacking them on the basis of limited information, or at least limited judgment.
	On compensation, it arises most obviously for the Bernard Matthews company in the current case. As the hon. Gentleman will know, compensation is available in the case of slaughter of healthy birds. In this case, that is a large majority of them and we are discussing that with the company. I am confident that we will come to an agreement, although both the company and the Department have focused on stamping out the disease as the top priority. It remains the case that our guidance about vaccines has not changed. In respect of the alleged cuts to the state veterinary service, the hon. Gentleman is simply wrong.

David Miliband: I feel a strong sense of fellow feeling with the right hon. Gentleman, who is a former Minister of Agriculture—a small but select club. I take seriously his term "considerable admiration" for the hard work of officials, and I will do all in my power to make sure that his understanding and recognition of their work is communicated, because it will be respected and taken seriously. Any British Cabinet Minister must be somewhat wary of committing to French levels of largesse in public compensation. I am happy to debate that with those on the Opposition Front Bench, who have snorted at that prospect. I am encouraged by their new-found interest in seeking examples across the channel. I will look at the French levels, but we have our own practices in that regard. The poultry industry is a proud industry that is not the recipient of Government subsidy, and it is important that the shared responsibilities that are established be taken forward. I recognise the right hon. Gentleman's strength of feeling about the situation of public authorities in Suffolk. We will certainly look at the situation, but as I said to other hon. Members, our focus, and that of all public authorities and private bodies, has been on stamping out the disease.
	Finally, I applaud the right hon. Gentleman's continuing if too lonely support for the European Union on the Opposition Benches, and I hope he will win some converts to his cause.

David Miliband: My hon. Friend raises a good and probing question. It is fair to say that discussions are continuing; that is the line to take on the issue. The Government believe that it is important that the poultry industry operates without subsidy, independently and takes responsibility. Equally, there are strongly held views about the rights of poultry owners. If an insurance-based system provided a third way, no doubt there would be many adherents to that approach. However, the direct answer to my hon. Friend's question is that discussions are continuing.

David Miliband: I am concerned by what my hon. Friend has reported. He did qualify the incident strongly by saying that it may not have been associated with the case that we are discussing. Perhaps officials can follow the issue up with him promptly. I know of a case in which a tarpaulin or cover was not on a lorry, but that was because it was transporting disused machinery, not animals.
	I can say that rigorous systems are in place forthe lorries that enter the Suffolk area and before they leave it. I can also assure my hon. Friend that the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs thinks that cars need to follow the lorries rather than preceding them if they are to see anything untoward. I shall certainly send him a copy of the letter that I am writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins). Perhaps officials can follow up the case with him because although the TV footage may seem alarming, it is sometimes of previous cases and it is important that people do not leap to the wrong conclusions. All my information is that that is being taken seriously and addressed rigorously.

David Miliband: I know that the right hon. and learned Gentleman speaks from bitter experience. I agree that experts who talk with the authority that comes from their profession are invaluable. The deputy chief officer who has appeared over the weekend, Fred Landeg, has done an outstanding job in being very clear with the public and in conveying quiet authority. Certainly we remain close with our European Commission colleagues. The European Union has held either a press briefing or a press conference today, which it would do as a matter of routine, in the course of which it commended the work that we are doing.

Roger Williams: The Secretary of State has not been exactly clear about whether the Government will consider market assistance if the price of poultry meat plummets, as it has done on other occasions. During the last incident, the UK was the only member state that did not provide such support. Will he give us an assurance that the financial consequences of the Fontainebleau agreement will not deter him from drawing down such assistance and leaving our poultry industry the most disadvantaged in Europe?

David Miliband: I hope I can be clearer: it is not the policy of the UK Government to second guess the commercial prices that are found on the market. It is also the case that this country—not the Government or the House of Commons, but the people—has a strong record of looking carefully at the evidence, and when sales in other countries have plummeted in previous episodes, they have not plummeted here. It is important that a clear and sober message goes out from the House about the facts of the case.

Angela Browning: The largest private-sector employer in my constituency is a poultry processor. The constituency also contains many small units of growers who serve that employer, as well as a number of other smaller businesses. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that if an outbreak occurred in Devon, where most poultry is reared outdoors for the organic market, and if all those birds had to be brought indoors, there would be enough flexibility in the planning system for temporary housing to allow the welfare of the birds to be sustained?

David Miliband: That is an important question, to which the short answer is yes. We are aware that common sense and practicality must enter into the equation, and we agree with those in the organic movement that it is important to provide appropriate protection for them as well as for others. I shall be happy to write to the hon. Lady with more details; but, as I have said, practicality enters into this, and I think we have the right systems in place.

David Miliband: I believe the right hon. Gentleman is the fourth former Conservative Agriculture Minister to give me the benefit of his experience. I do not know the collective noun for a group of former Conservative Agriculture Ministers; a flock, perhaps.

David Miliband: I should like to enjoy the confidence in and praise for DEFRA's work that the hon. Gentleman and others have expressed for as long as possible, but I do not wish to tempt fate.
	The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the British public are taking a long, hard, sober look at the situation and drawing sensible conclusions. It is also important that the House is sending a relatively united message, and I commend the hon. Gentleman and other Members of Parliament for that. I believe that one or two Members have visited the site—I knowthat the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) has done so—and have seen the co-ordinated work that is being done locally.
	The best thing that we can do for public confidence is obviously to stamp out the disease, and that is what we are determined to do.

David Miliband: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—I am completely stumped by the googly that he has bowled me. I have not noticed that in any of the voluminous briefing that has been sent to me. The watching dozens in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be petrified at the prospect that he has found something out that I have not. I will find out and write to him. Perhaps it will be of interest to the whole House if I place a copy of my answerin the Library, so that we can all deepen our understanding of the matter.

Liam Byrne: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	Last summer, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary launched the most radical shake-up ever of our immigration system. He was clear, open, honest and frank about the system's strengths and weaknesses and how he believed it needed to change. Since last July, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), and I have travelled the length and breadth of the UK discussing with front-line staff, as well as local business communities and public services, the way in which they think things should change in the years to come. As a result, over the next few months, we will introduce five important reforms that we will announce shortly.
	First, we will introduce a new strategy to bring together government to tackle illegal immigration in the round, as recommended last year by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and the Home Affairs Committee. Secondly, we will provide new resources to help double the budget for enforcement and for the removal of individuals who break our immigration laws. Thirdly, we will introduce new technology to count everybody in and out of Britain. Fourthly, we will establish stronger international partnerships because, in an era of global migration, it has become impossible for nation states to manage the issue on their own. Fifthly, the Bill will provide new powers for the borders and immigration agency, which will go live in shadow form on 1 April this year.

Liam Byrne: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for those remarks and I hope that we will debate the matter he mentions both this afternoon and in Committee. I kept an open mind about proposals on it. I know that some of the plans from all parts of the House have been developed at the ideas stage but not necessarilyat the detail stage. I am a keen reader of many Conservative publications, such as those of their national and international policy strategy group, and I noticed that the Conservatives recently said that they were aiming to make more detailed proposals, but at some point in the future. Although this matter has been talked about for many years on the Opposition Benches, it appears that details are still to emerge.
	I addressed the matter with an open mind, but ata time when the terrorist threat to the country is so severe, I cannot justify a wholesale reorganisation—and disruption—of those agencies that are currently charged with securing our border. I recently visited the United States of America, which has embarked on such a reorganisation. Five years later, it is still not complete. Of course, when border agencies are reorganised, that simply creates another set of touch-points with agencies in-country. I think that one of the arguments that will emerge over the coming months is that, in our modern era of global migration and mass movement, it is difficult to separate the work of organisations that operate at the border from that of organisations that are responsible for in-country enforcement—or, indeed, from that of agencies such as the Serious Organised Crime Agency, which are responsible for helping secure our borders overseas.
	The Bill gives us many of the measures that the proposals that the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) recommends would deliver, but without the disorganisation—without the creation of the prospect of disorder at the border.

Andrew MacKinlay: I wanted to interrupt the Minister ago when he was talking about the local border authorities and the immigration authorities, which he said dealt with matters internally—I forget the precise term that he used. I sent to him last week an example of the lack of such joined-up administration. Some people who were illegally coming into the country were stopped by the Port of Tilbury police. The immigration officials at the port of Tilbury said that it was a matter for Stansted, and when Stansted was communicated with by my Port of Tilbury police, it said, "Let them go." That scenario powerfully demonstrates the need for one joined-up co-ordinated border police force. Can the Minister explain what happened in that scenario? I shall refer to it later, if I catch the eye of Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Liam Byrne: It is possible, under the existing measures in the border management programme, to undertakea degree of alignment in operational capability, butthe measures that we propose are a start towards introducing such alignment. Following the work that we did with our partners and front-line staff, those were the powers that they believed to be important.

Liam Byrne: Let me deal with my hon. Friend's second question first. The advice of the Attorney-General and of Scottish advocates is that the powers that we propose relate to devolved matters and would therefore require a Sewel motion. As there are only seven international ports in Scotland, compared with 44 in England, Scottish Executive colleagues have proposed an operational solution to the problem, which they have talked through with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland and with which I am satisfied.
	On my hon. Friend's first point, we obviously have to work with existing ports as they are. We will not allow arbitrary lines on a map to divert us from our intention of seeking to secure the border. We will work closely with operators when we devise solutions.
	The third set of provisions, clauses 20 to 27, provide us with a range of measures to shut down the exploitation of illegal migrant labour. We cannot secure our borders unless we take that on. The Bill therefore builds on the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 to make it more difficult to employ people illegally and to increase the penalties for doing so. The Bill extends existing powers of search and arrest to the new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker. It introduces new powers for immigration officers to seize cash suspected of being gained during the commission of an offence under immigration law. We ask, too, for the power to sell assets once we have seized them as part of a criminal investigation, following the forfeiture of such property to the Secretary of State by the courts.
	As we toughen the regime for businesses that break the rules, we must make it easier for employersto double-check who is who and who has the right to work. At present, that is too complicated. Up to60 different documents could be proffered as evidence of entitlement to be in this country and to work, so clauses 5 to 15 would change that situation by phasing out insecure 20th-century forms of identification and phasing in a single biometric identity card for foreign nationals. The Bill therefore introduces powers tomake regulations requiring those subject to immigration control to apply for a biometric immigration document. We will start to issue those documents in 2008 and roll them out incrementally thereafter.
	As is right and proper, we will return to the House each time that we wish to extend the power to a new category of third-country national.

Liam Byrne: That is an extremely important point, which has been put to me by right hon. and hon. Members over the past few weeks, and I will talk about it in a moment. Suffice it to say that, because of the issues that my hon. Friend alludes to, we will not seek to introduce overnight the cards for the estimated3.9 million third-country nationals who are in Britain today. In fact, we will seek to phase them in over a number of years, beginning from 2008. However, such a document allows us to phase out many of the insecure documents in circulation, giving employers and benefit providers the benefit of being able to know whether the person presenting themselves is who they say they are and have the right to work.
	A further point that has been made to me over the past few weeks is whether there is any possibility of the police being able to stop someone in the street and demand to see their biometric immigration document. That is not the case. Clause 5(1) limits the powers to take biometric samples and to make checks for immigration purposes and procedures. Regulations will establish the grounds for verification, but there is no intention to give the police the power to stop and search someone whom they believe is a foreign national.
	I understand that, under the stop-and-search rules, officers are currently constrained to needing reasonable suspicion that someone is about to perpetrate a serious act of violence or is conveying stolen or prohibited articles, but that must be based on current and accurate intelligence. Suspecting someone of just being a foreign national and stopping them to ask for their documents is subjective and therefore an arbitrary use of power, which is subject to certain remedies.

Liam Byrne: That is the foundation that the Bill will put into place. Obviously, the rules that govern the way that services are accessed are set out in different kinds of regulations and laws, which different parts of the Government have in place, but there are a number of services that require public servants to check whether someone has an entitlement to them—good examples are the issuing of a national insurance number, secondary health care and certain local authority services provided under other immigration laws—so we are seeking to put in place the power both for employers and public services to validate and verify whether the document belongs to the person who presents it and whether it is current and in force. The Bill provides an important platform, but it does not provide everything. The regulations and rules for other public services will need to be modernised as the biometric immigration document becomes more widespread.

Andrew Love: I apologise to my hon. Friend for arriving after he started to speak. Some concern has been expressed to me about whether the provisions will be extended to children under the age of 16. Will he tell the House his intentions in that regard? Under the Identity CardsAct 2006, those aged 16 years old and under are not covered.

Liam Byrne: I am happy to provide that clarification for my right hon. Friend. We will introduce biometric immigration documents and ID cards for foreign nationals in 2008. We will then introduce voluntary ID cards for British citizens in 2009. We will, of course, seek to designate biometric immigration documents once the national identity register comes online.
	The next set of important clauses are those that strengthen our hand in detecting and removing those who are here illegally. Clauses 36 to 38 provide a new statutory gateway for information sharing between HMRC, its prosecutions office and the IND. That power consolidates and builds on existing gateways and allows us, with improved information sharing, to work much more closely together, to help us tackle illegal working, to help us check the information in applications for leave, and to help us detect those who may be defrauding the asylum support system.
	Deportation, however, once somebody is detained, must be faster than it is today, especially for those who abuse this country's hospitality and breach our laws. The Home Secretary has consistently made it clear that public protection is his No. 1 priority, and this Bill therefore takes forward commitments to ensure the mandatory deportation of foreign national criminals in cases of serious offences.

Liam Byrne: I will make a little more progress, then I will be happy to give way.
	Significant work has already taken place to improve the processes within the IND for dealing with foreign national criminals. The Bill takes those measures forward in one significant way, by providing a statutory framework for triggering mandatory removal. With the Bill, subject to certain exceptions, a non-EEA foreign national who commits a serious offence as set out in an order made under section 72 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and receives a custodial sentence will automatically be presumed to be subject to deportation, unless to do so would breach our international obligations. The same applies where a sentence of 12 months or longer is imposed for any other offence. I give way to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way yet again. Bullwood Hall prison in my constituency is now used to detain foreign national prisoners awaiting deportation, but many of those people have been held beyond the expiration of their original sentence because of severe bureaucratic delays in processing the deportation paperwork. Will the Minister agree to review that process, not just the provisions in the Bill but the day-to-day working between his staff in the IND and their colleagues in the FCO who liaise with the receiving Governments, as it were? There is a bottleneck in the system, and it has to be cleared if we are to deport these people more swiftly, which is what everybody wants, including in some cases the internees themselves.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am still troubled by clauses 1to 4. Will my hon. Friend authorise his officials to place in the Library this afternoon the advice to which he referred? He said that there were only seven ports in Scotland, but we would all agree that they are pretty major ones. Why do we need clauses 1 to 4 for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but not for Scotland? If he had said that the Scottish Parliament was going to introduce such a measure, I could understand it; but he did not say that. I want to see the advice this afternoon. Can it be put in the Library?

Damian Green: The Minister will realise from the tone of the interventions—not so much from the Benches behind me, but from those behind him—the enormous degree of scepticism with which the Bill is being greeted by the House. He cannot be surprised.
	We should put the Bill in its proper perspective. I will start with the legislative perspective. This is the sixth immigration Bill that the Government have introduced in less than ten years, and these Bills are coming along faster and faster. Last year we had an immigration Bill; this year, we have an immigration Bill; I understand that, next year, the Home Office hopes for an immigration consolidation Bill. If passing laws made our borders more secure, we would have the safest and most efficient immigration system in the world. Instead we have an embarrassing shambles.
	The Home Secretary was of course right to describe the system as "not fit for purpose" in that notorious phrase that perfectly encapsulates the new Labour Home Office; a phrase that was correct when he said it and is even more correct today, when he has had nearly a year to make things better.
	The problem, as illustrated by the Bill, is that for this Government, passing a new law is displacement activity. They do it because it is easier than getting to grips with the real problems. They do it because it gives Ministers a sense of usefulness, purpose and forward momentum, a sense that they might well lose if they stopped to contemplate the reality of Britain's immigration and asylum system today.
	Let us look at the reality. The second perspective in which the Bill needs to be seen is the impact of all the Bills passed by the Government on the real world. Let us consider the current efficiency of the Home Office and its immigration system. Let us look at what has happened in the past few months: the Harmondsworth riot; owing to rioting by inmates, 150 immigration detainees were bailed or freed from the immigration estate; the statement by the head of removals at the IND that he did not have "the faintest idea" how many people were currently living in the UK illegally; the admission by the Home Secretary that there are as many as 450,000 failed asylum seekers resident in the UK; the accusations of corruption at Lunar house at the IND's office, where senior workers were demanding sex from an 18-year-old girl in return for granting asylum; the discovery, also at Lunar house, that a member of an extremist Islamist group was working there unchecked by the Home Office; and perhaps most notorious of all, the fact that the Home Office itself was employing illegal workers.
	The Home Office always faces difficulties, but this is unarguably the worst record of failure in its entire history, and my remarks have covered only the immigration area of the Home Office. We need to measure the Bill against the scale of the current crisis. The Bill contains some measures that might be useful, some that might be damaging and some that will have no practical effect whatsoever. It has, as I think the Minister would admit in his private moments, no central purpose or theme. It is a rag-bag of largely unconnected measures.

Keith Vaz: Although I share some of the concerns that the hon. Gentleman has expressed, I know thathis memory is not so short that he has forgotten the way the Home Office was run under the previous Government, when the backlog of cases was hundreds and hundreds of thousands. I personally went down to Lunar house, to find bags and bags of unopened mail. That is what was happening under a previous Home Secretary. Let us accept that part of the problem is a systemic failure that started under the previous Government.

John Denham: Given that the Minister promised the Home Affairs Committee before Christmas that unskilled migration from outside the EU will end by the end of this year, can the hon. Gentleman confirm that his proposal for limits on new migration applies only to highly skilled migrants? What is his argument for a programme to limit people whom our economy needs and who will benefit us?

Julie Kirkbride: I have been listening carefully to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality and his assessments, particularly with regard to foreign nationals convicted of criminal offences. I am still not sure of what would happen in respect of a recent case, about which I am sure everyone in the House has heard. The case is of a Somali national who had already been found guilty of and served a sentence for sex offences, who was subsequently found guilty yet again of similar sex offences and returned to prison. Given his flagrant abuse of the hospitality given by the British people and the concern that any person might have about becoming one of his victims, would that individual, in my hon. Friend's estimation of the Government's provisions, be deported to his own country or not?

Damian Green: I agree. People from around the country, whether with relatively small airports, although Newcastle is not that small, or with small ports, as those of us who live in Kent know well, accept that there is a large hole. We do not have a barrier; we have sieve. It should be relatively easy to protect an island, but we seem to find it more difficult than other countries find protecting long land borders.

David Jones: My hon. Friend's point is correct, but it does not simply apply to small ports. Holyhead, for example, is the third-largest passenger port in the United Kingdom, and yet there is no permanent immigration officer presence there. That puts tremendous additional stress on the police. Does he agree that it is all very well to confer a panoply of additional powers on immigration officers, but that if there are no immigration officers to enforce them, it is a pretty fatuous exercise?

Andrew MacKinlay: There is a calumny in the Bill. It states that people can be held for three hours before a police officer comes. Actually, it is the other way around: the police officer is there, and cannot summon the immigration official. That is happening, and I have documented it. The Minister shakes his head, but I will put the letter that I sent to him in the Library, and he can see for himself. The fact is that the Essex and Kent police forces— [Interruption.] I am addressing the House of Commons, if the Minister does not mind. This is a very serious point, and the Minister does not listen to some of our hon. Friends who are in the front line. When Essex and Kent police officers apprehend people, they are instructed to give them a card saying, "Go to Lunar house, Croydon". When the Essex, Kent and Port of Tilbury police contact the immigration officials, they say "Set them free". That is documented. I have sent a letter to the Minister, and I will put it in the Library this afternoon.

Damian Green: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving a dose of realism to his party's Front Benchers, who sometimes appear to live in a parallel universe.
	The Minister will already have heard protests, not least from the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), about the difficulties that his proposals will cause to the training and oversight of immigration officers. They will be given extra powers, but it is not obvious that there will be any new guidelines for them to meet, or that they will be given any extra training. Those problems have been identified by Liberty and the Immigration Law Practitioners' Association. If the Minister followed the almost universal advice to bring the various bodies together under a border police force, they would be given the appropriate training and oversight that we apply to our police. That in itself would reassure those—clearly represented in the House—who feel that the proposals give too much power to immigration officers.
	As for the part of the Bill that deals with biometric registration, we have no objection to the use of biometric tools for specific purposes and when individuals have control over the management of their identity, but the Government are introducing new laws that breach both those principles and therefore become an unacceptable intrusion into the privacy of the individual. The main example is of course the national identity register, but the regulations proposed in the Bill have some of the same dangerous characteristics.
	The danger is compounded by the vague nature of the proposals. Almost everything is left to secondary legislation, so it is impossible to know at this stage how all-embracing the controls will be. What is clear is that the questions arising from this part of the Bill are extremely serious. How much will the compulsory document cost, what non-biometric details will be required, and how will foreign nationals who are already here legally register for a card? Perhaps most important of all, how will the information be kept secure?
	Ministers constantly assert that once biometrics are in use, everything will be secure, 100 per cent. accurate and 100 per cent. safe. The Minister will know that people have conducted tests that simply give the lie to that assertion. As  The Guardian reported on 17 November last year, an expert from Cambridge university successfully and easily extracted data from a biometric passport with an inexpensive reader, to prove just how open to fraud they are. He commented:
	"What concerns me is that this demonstrates bad design on the part of the Home Office, and we know that government IT projects have a habit of going terribly wrong. There is a lack of security in what we can see".
	On top of that is the question that lies at the heart of our objections to the national identity register: who will have access to the information stored on the biometric visas? Clause 8 is instructive, saying that the regulations
	"may include provision permitting the use of information for specified purposes which do not relate to immigration."
	What exactly does that mean—access to benefits, health care, employment or education? Among the first people to be affected by that new requirement will be those 3.9 million people who have lived in this country, in many cases to our benefit and to their benefit, for many years. They are entitled to know exactly how intrusive the Government are planning to be.
	I hope that Ministers will also deal with the point made about that matter by Liberty, which cannot see how the creation of a biometric registration document is an effective method of dealing with the people who are living in this country without the right of residence or work. The Minister is aware that employers already face legal obligations under the Asylum and Immigration Act, which has been mentioned, and that they are obliged to make document checks. Liberty says that it is
	"not aware that there is a significant problem with employers being deceived by fraudulent employees with fake documents."
	It says, and it is right, that it would be helpful if the Government were to clarify whether there is such a big problem. Liberty says:
	"We suspect the real problem of illegal working lies not in the deceiving of honest employers but in the intentional employment of those without immigration status by unscrupulous and exploitative employers."
	I am sure that at some stage in the passage of the Bill— [Interruption.] The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), is shaking her head. If she is saying that there are no exploitative employers who deliberately employ illegal labour, I am interested and I will leave her to explain that to Labour Members. That is probably not true. There is clearly some of the first and some of the second, but in my experience there is more of the second than the first. I am surprised that the Government appear to be rejecting that.

Damian Green: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Bill gives rise to a large number of issues and I suspect that there will not be time to discuss them all fully in Committee, but that is a common problem with the Government, who have never taken parliamentary scrutiny seriously. As a result, every year, they pass laws that are worse than they were when they were leaving the Minister, as it were. The problem has come back to bite them.
	On the issue of the treatment of claimants, the Minister will be pleased to hear that we welcome the requirement for people granted limited leave to remain to report to an immigration officer, but we hope that that will become a genuine requirement, and not go the way of the completely ineffective sex offender registration system. We have no objections in principle to the changes on support for asylum seekers. We will have questions at Committee stage about the removal of the right to present new evidence at the appeal stage of an immigration hearing. The Minister will be aware that strong arguments have been advanced by lobby groups against the reduction of appeal rights. Indeed, the House should hear a point that was made in the House in 1992:
	"The immigration officer who knows that his decision may be subject to appeal is likely to be a good deal more circumspect, careful and even-handed than the officer who knows that his power of decision is absolute. That is simply, I fear, a matter of human nature, quite apart from anything else." —[ Official Report, 2 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 43.]
	That point was made by the Prime Minister when he was shadow Home Secretary. Just because the Prime Minister says something does not mean it was not true, and I think that he was right about that.
	Under the heading of "Enforcement", we particularly welcome the clauses designed to combat people trafficking. We are pleased that the Government listened to us and to the many groups that called on them to sign up to the European convention against human trafficking, and we urge them to use the Bill to put into effect some of other suggestions for fighting that vile crime. It was clear from the Minister's speech that he has read all my speeches and press reports avidly, so he will be aware that we recommended separate interviews at all airports for women and children travelling with an adult who is not a parent, guardian or husband. Every police force and local government department should have a strategy for dealing with suspected victims of trafficking, and the Government should set up a helpline to provide information for women who have been trafficked and for people who suspect that exploitation has taken place. We will try to help the Minister to go as fast as he wants to go in that part of the Bill, because the UK should take the lead in combating people trafficking, which is modern-day slavery. The 200th anniversary of the abolition of the slave trade is a good year for us to take significant steps forward in fighting the modern slave trade.
	The Bill is a long way from being perfect—frankly, it is a long way from being very good—and it certainly does not face up to the scale of the crisis confronting the immigration system. Britain's borders are not secure, and they have not been made any more secure by recent decisions at the Home Office. The Government have made some gestures towards better security in the Bill, and it is our duty as a responsible Opposition to help with that. It is vital for the country that we develop safe and secure borders, and an immigration system that is once again fit for purpose. Our party will play its part in making that happen.

John Denham: The Select Committee is currently looking at the evolution of such matters within the European Union. I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the Prum treaty and to countries generally towards the eastern part of the EU and central Europe. There is a major issue in that. I do not want to anticipate the Committee's conclusion, but my feeling is that it would be better if data sharing took place by agreement of the EU as a whole, rather than by small groups in the EU breaking away and coming to their own arrangements. However, I must say to the hon. Gentleman that that is a matter of some debate in the Committee, and we shall have to see what conclusion we come to on it. The Government had a reasonable case for not simply leaping into signing up to something that had been decided by a small number of EU member states.
	Let me return to the point about internal measures against illegal migration. The clear conclusion of the Committee was that:
	"The employment of illegal workers should be one of the main targets for action against illegal migrants who are already living illegally in the UK."
	It particularly recommended that:
	"Enforcement work on tax and national insurance should take place in conjunction with all the other legal measures available to tackle abuse in the informal labour market."
	We found that evidence suggested that past strategies of trying to focus on certain groups of illegal workers in specific workplaces and of removing them from the country was missing the point. The fundamental problem is employers who are abusive and exploitative—and who abuse and exploit illegal workers and many other workers, too. The problem-employers we should be most worried about do not just employ illegal workers: they do not pay their tax and national insurance; they do not comply with the minimum wage; they do not follow health and safety requirements; and they do not follow employment legislation. If we had a cross-Government drive against abusive and exploitative employers and agencies, we would certainly deal with illegal migration, but in the course of doing that, we would also deal with a lot of other abuse and exploitation.
	The Minister is moving the Government in that direction—the Bill is a move in that direction—but he has some battles to win with other parts of the Government if they are to become fully fledged partners in the exercise. I will give him all the best support that I can in respect of those arguments. The Select Committee came to the view that targeting abusive employers would bring more success in dealing with illegal migration than would simply trying to find five or six people somewhere, or diving into a factory to grab 10 people—and let us not forget the costs of removing such people.

David Taylor: Of course my right hon. Friend is right that the focus should be on illegal working, but as we learned in respect of the gangmasters legislation, itis extraordinarily difficult to get cross-Department co-operation even when the ends are shared. That is obviously still the case in 2007, as it was when the gangmasters legislation was under consideration some years ago. Does my right hon. Friend have any suggestions as to how individual Departments can be encouraged to co-operate and exchange information within the narrow limits specified by Ministers?

John Denham: My hon. Friend is right that there will be a major public policy issue, but I see no way of avoiding that now. We might have to put in place measures that enable people to return home, if they wish to do so. Also, there will at least be a better knowledge of what our labour market genuinely needs if people are paid a proper rate of pay, rather than the poverty pay that is paid at present. I do not pretend that I have all the answers. I have raised this issue with the Minister. There must be a strategy for dealingwith such a situation. However, I say to my hon. Friend that the alternative, which is simply to regularise everybody's position, would lead to another 320,000 people turning up within the space of a few months or a few years in the expectation that the same would happen to them.
	We are having a debate on this issue in this country, but it needs to be raised across the EU. Select Committee members went to Poland last week to visit Frontex, the border agency charged with co-ordinating European border activity both across the land border in eastern Europe and in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. We were interested to hear about the work that it was doing, but the fact is that the same issues arise time and again. Trying to strengthen border patrols along the Mediterranean will not work as long as there is massive use of very poorly paid and exploited labour—in the agricultural sector, for instance, as is the case in Italy. It is not possible to police a border if behind that border there are many opportunities to work—albeit in very bad conditions, but ones that, to refer to the example I have just given, are better for the many African people employed than are those in the countries from which they have come. The Government need to raise this issue in the EU, so that there is effective labour market enforcement across the EU and not only in the UK, because ultimately what happens along the European borders affects the pressure on our own borders. That is of relevance to some of the issues in the Bill.

John Denham: The strategy in the Bill, which the Minister outlined today, is targeted at another group of people. The compulsion will come in for those outside the EEA first. We will arrive—soon, I hope—at the point where everyone has a biometric ID card. That is clearly the ideal situation, which, in my view, we should work towards as quickly as possible. However, starting with selected groups of people outside the EEA will create a period during which there will be some premium on having identity documents from other EU states, as a way for those who are clearly not British to establish a right to be here. I hope that the Government and the Opposition can explore in Committee whether there are sufficient powers and penalties regarding the fraudulent use of identity documents from elsewhere within the EU. Someone who fraudulently uses such documents should face a penalty sufficient that there is a presumption that any other claims to immigration status will be removed.

Edward Garnier: Does the right hon. Gentleman not agree that, while we still have a free-travel area between the United Kingdom and the Irish Republic, and while we are not yet assured that Scottish legislation mirroring the Bill will come into force at the same time, there are two enormous holes in this so-called UK Borders Bill?

Paul Rowen: We all want an immigration system that works. We want a system that is fair to everyone, firm where it needs to be firm, properly resourced, and conducted in a measured political climate where judgments are made in the interests of the nation, not in response to fevered headlines. It is therefore deeply worrying that the Bill's contents have led Liberty to describe it as
	"one of the worst examples of cynical legislation"
	that it has seen.
	This is the Government's third immigration Bill in as many years and their fifth since they were first elected. It is their fifth attempt to get a handle on the system by making extra laws, but by also providing limited enactment and enforcement of existing legislation and rules. The real problems with immigration are administrative, not legislative, and can be blamed on the Government's use of migration as a political football. Gimmicks, headlines and targets have destroyed any semblance of a managed migration system, and yet another law will not solve it. The introduction of automatic deportation is emblematic of the Government's whole approach to home affairs. Headline-driven targets and gimmicks push the system to breaking point. Administrative breakdown causes a scandal—in this case, more than 1,000 foreign prisoners being released after completion of their sentences without being considered for deportation.
	The Government overreact with "tough" new laws and offences and "tough" new targets that, instead of solving the problem, put even greater burdens on the administrators. The Department is in crisis and Ministers who think that legislation is a substitute for real action are not living in the real world. The issues that affect our constituents are not dealt with by this Bill. For example, I have written to the Minister about the failure in my constituency to remove five husbands whose arranged marriages have broken down. All the information has been provided, but the men have not been removed and continue to harass and harangue their former wives. The Bill does not even begin to address such problems. Nor does it address the length of time taken by the IND to process applications for the right to remain. There is no need for additional powers, but there is a real need for administrative systems to be made to work—to become, in the Home Secretary's words, "fit for purpose".
	Nonetheless, some elements of the Bill have merit, including turning the immigration and nationality directorate into an independent agency. We will seek to amend some of the proposals in the Bill in Committee, but we must not pretend that extra powers alone will be enough. Immigration chaos will end only when the Government start doing less to do it better.
	The first four clauses give immigration officers at ports new powers to detain people suspected of non-immigration offences. They do not contain any suggestion for an integrated border force. Instead, it is intended to allow the existing border control authorities to work more closely together. A truly integrated force would require new, not just redeployed resources. It is not enough simply to shift police officers away from their current duties or put existing customs officials in new uniforms. We believe that there should be a unified border force and that the level of integration in the Bill is not enough. For example, at Heathrow airport, four police forces operate in addition to immigration officers, revenue and customs officers and security forces. A unified force would secure our borders more effectively and efficiently. The Government have stated that 24-hour security at all ports of entry would cost only £105 million a year, but they are spending nearly £100,000 a day on unworkable, illiberal ID cards.
	The powers seem generally appropriate, though we want to ensure that comprehensive training will be given to immigration officers who are designated in that way. As other hon. Members have said, the powers need also to be exercised in accordance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 codes of practice, which provide the framework within which the police operate. Were children to be detained, for example, the immigration officer should have a duty to request the attendance of an appropriate adult.
	The proposals for biometric registration seem driven by the need for a dry run for ID cards rather than being solely for the purpose of better immigration management. While the increased use of biometrics on visas and immigration documents has clear advantages, we have serious concerns about the practicalities of the proposals. First, issuing documents to the 3.9 million people already in the UK, many of whom have indefinite leave to remain and therefore no contact with immigration services, will be an administrative nightmare. There is no indication of how much that will cost, where the processing will happen and what provision will be made for those who cannot travel. I could list many more such concerns.
	For those coming into the country for the first time, there will be a major problem in processing the extra information at our struggling consulates. What additional resources will be provided at, say, the high commission in Islamabad to cope with the extra work? At the moment, the high commission there is issuing visas for appeals granted last September. One can only imagine what additional delays will be caused to applications for visas for normal and ordinary events such as family weddings.
	Because the information to be included in the biometric immigration document is to be provided by regulations, we have no idea of the scope of that, or of what will be demanded. What will happen to the BID of those who are subsequently granted British citizenship? Will the BID be an effective enforcement tool against those who are illegally in the UK? It is clear that the problem is not in finding those who are working or living illegally in the UK, but in enforcing action against them. For example, in 2004-05, raids found nearly 4,000 illegal workers, but only eight employers were taken to court and found guilty. That is the problem with many of the proposals in the Bill. There are already plenty of powers, but we are not seeing any action.
	The Bill also states that the use of BIDs can be specified not just for immigration purposes, but in employment, access to benefits and NHS funding. Can the Minister explain why, for example, the requirement for employers to check biometric information is being introduced without the public consultation that the Department promised last year? Why has there been no published assessment of the financial impact on the public or private sectors of compulsory checking of BIDs?
	The proposals on conditional leave to remain pick up on suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats for handling the difficult situation of people who have been ordered by a court to be deported, but who cannot actually be deported for human rights reasons. It is wholly right that people should not be deported to places where they face torture. We suggested developing a way to better monitor those few individuals in the UK who cannot be detained or deported. The proposals in the Bill seem a workable solution, although appropriate protections of proportionality should be built in, especially where they are used for children.
	We welcome clause 17, which will ensure that an asylum seeker can continue to be supported at all stages up to an appeal being determined. However, the Bill does not address what happens when asylum seekers go underground and a local authority has to put their children into care.
	For enforcement operations, the police will have the power to seize cash in illegal working cases. They will have powers to dispose of seized property. They already have the power to seize it; apparently it is sitting in warehouses. They want to be able to extradite people who are committing UK immigration offences from abroad. Those powers are all welcome, although again we warn that the real problem is enforcement, not a lack of powers. There have been only 15 successful prosecutions of employers of illegal migrants in the last five years. It is also a measure of how badly the Government's rushed approach to legislation serves us that they took powers to seize goods but not to dispose of them, so that they have warehouses full of things that they cannot dispose of. If matters were more considered, perhaps such holes would not appear.
	The provisions on automatic deportation raise the most concerns. Although people who seriously breach the trust under which they are in this country should be deported, automatic deportation, without consideration of other factors, could cause serious problems. That decision has clearly been taken to satisfy the Prime Minister's rhetoric during the foreign prisoners crisis in April and May last year and his reckless pledge to deport everyone, regardless of human rights or any other considerations. Rules are being changed even though the problem was not the lack of power to deport, but the failure to get around to deporting people.
	The Home Secretary has already removed from the immigration rules the capacity to consider factors such as length of residence in the United Kingdom; strength of connections with the United Kingdom; personal history, including character, conduct and employment record; domestic circumstances; previous criminal record and the nature of any offence of which the person has been convicted; compassionate circumstances; and any representations received on the person's behalf. What can be the harm in considering those factors?
	The overreaction to the foreign prisoners scandal caught up many people who had a strong case for staying in the UK, despite having made a mistake. Deporting every person who commits a crime, even if they have been in the UK for decades and have children and other family in this country, cannot be right, fair or proper.

Paul Rowen: The reality is that the judge already has the power to order a deportation. However, a deportation should follow consideration of the case; it should not be automatic. Let me give the hon. Gentleman a few examples to illustrate my point. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) dealt with the case of Sakchai Makao, a Thai national who had lived on Shetland for 10 years. He went off the rails after the death of his step-father and set fire to a car. He served eight months. He committed the crime four years ago, but was rounded up last year. He no longer spoke Thai or had any real family connections in Thailand, yet he was threatened with deportation. Only the strength of feeling among the people of Shetland and their campaign prevented him from being removed.
	Ernesto Leal arrived in this country 30 years ago, after fleeing General Pinochet's regime, under which his father had been tortured. Ernesto Leal's status in this country had never been in question and, although convicted of a crime, as a first-time offender with no previous convictions he served 18 months on the judge's recommendation. He was then released and adhered strictly to his probation requirements.

Paul Rowen: No; the point that we were making was that automatic deportation in relation to a period of imprisonment of 12 months is not in itself fair or just and does not take account of the cases and issues that I have mentioned.
	After examining the cases of the 1,000 foreign nationals who were not considered for deportation, the Home Office itself said that about 40 per cent. of them were not to be deported. According to its criteria, itdid not consider them as necessarily needing deporting. We believe that, instead of automatic deportation, the courts should make the decision on deportation of foreign national offenders according to the facts of the case. We need to beef up the powers in that regard, rather than making the fundamental change that the Government are talking about.
	We hope that those concerns can be addressedin Committee to improve the Bill. We will table amendments. We welcome some parts of the Bill, because they offer good and important developments. However, it would be unfortunate if yet another chance to construct an immigration system that works and is fit for purpose was wasted by playing to the tabloid gallery or sidelined by the desire to pilot through an unpopular Identity Cards Bill.

Neil Gerrard: I would not say that I was enthusiastic about seeing the Bill, because over the past few years there has been somuch legislation on immigration and asylum that I sometimes think the Home Office should be banned from introducing any more legislation for three or four years—Ministers might enjoy that.
	I can understand the reasoning behind many parts of the Bill, but I have a real problem with the lack of detail in it about what will happen and how it will work. I am referring to the powers of arrest for immigration officers, powers on illegal working and powers on deportation. In many respects, how the Bill works will become clear only when we see the regulations. An enormous amount is left to regulations, which is a trend that I see in more and more Bills now and which I do not particularly like, because it means that often we do not know precisely how a Bill will work and what it will do.
	I understand the point that we do not want too much detail in the Bill, because if we try to put every single dot and comma in the Bill, the tiniest change means coming back for primary legislation. However, in far too many Bills such an enormous amount is left to regulations that we end up relying on assurances from Ministers about how a Bill will work, despite what appear to be wide powers in the measure. I am not casting aspersions on the good faith of Ministers, but that does mean that there are no guarantees for the future. In addition, of course, regulations cannot be amended. We might think that 90 per cent. of a regulation is acceptable but 10 per cent. is a problem, and there will be no way to amend it as we can amend the primary legislation.
	All the way through the Bill, it is the lack of detail and what will come along when we see the regulations that concerns me. I can understand the reasoning for the first few clauses on immigration officers' powers of detention. Let us say that a British citizen was tryingto leave the country and there is a warrant for that person's arrest or that person was known to have committed a crime. If an immigration officer was the only person at the port and no police were there, he could not stop and detain that person. I understand that a loophole exists, but I am concerned that the rules must be clear on immigration officers' accountability and the routes for complaint or challenge against the use of their powers.
	The suggestion that PACE should apply has been made already. What happens when the immigration officer tries to detain someone? Does he have the power to question that person? If so, would that happen under caution? How would that relate to PACE? It is important that we get this right, because the Bill includes a criminal offence of obstructing the immigration officer in the carrying out of that function. In effect, there is a criminal offence of not co-operating with the immigration officer, so it is important that we know exactly what the rules are, what the powers are, what the limitations on them are and how they can be challenged if they are used inappropriately.
	Clearly, the clauses on biometric registration are steps on the way to ID cards. We know from the debate on the Identity Cards Bill that it was always intended that one of the first groups of people to be subject to ID card legislation would be foreign nationals. There is no surprise in that, but some of the questions that now arise are similar to those that arose about the Identity Cards Act 2006.
	It is not clear to me from the Bill where the data that are collected will be stored. Will we have a card with a chip on which the information is stored, so that the information is carried around on the card? Or will we have, as we were promised with the Identity Cards Bill, a major database behind the card? That is important; some of us who have real problems with ID cards would feel less uncomfortable with a chip on the card, rather than one with a big database behind it. The same applies with the Bill and we have questions about who will have access to the data. What will be the data protection regime?
	Issues relating to children have been mentioned. When we debated the Identity Cards Bill, we were specifically told that there was no intention to introduce ID cards for children under the age of 16, but there is a specific reference in clause 6 to the possibility of the registration of under-16s, despite what was said earlier.
	Some of the powers look extremely wide and we need to know what they mean and how they will be used. For instance, clause 7 will allow the consequences of a failure to comply with biometric registration
	"to be at the discretion of the Secretary of State."
	That is a very wide power: the Secretary of State can impose a penalty on someone for not complying with the registration, but there is no indication of what that penalty might or might not be.
	A few days ago, I raised with the Minister the question of how the card will be used. For instance, could the police stop someone and ask them for their card? The Minister has assured me in writing——and mentioned earlier today——that that would not be the case. However, we would assume that an immigration officer could ask for the card and that it will be asked for in a variety of circumstances. Let us suppose that there was a raid on a factory where it was thought that a significant number of employees were working illegally—the sort of thing that we know happens. People in that factory may require the card; others will not: people who are British citizens but who happen to have come to this country as migrants. We must be sure that the checking of such people, who might include British citizens, will be done with sensitivity.
	I am not clear either, given the Bill's phrasing, exactly who in the end will have the biometric card. The Bill talks about people who are subject to immigration control. It appears that that will be interpreted to include people who have indefinite leave to remain, on the ground that it is possible for that person's indefinite leave to be revoked at some point. For instance, if someone with indefinite leave stays out the country for two years or more, the indefinite leave lapses. Is it the intention that everyone who has indefinite leave to remain but has not then acquired British citizenship will be brought into the ambit of the Bill? That is a very large number of people and it will include manyfamily members of people who are British citizens. After living in this country for years and years and having indefinite leave to remain, they would feelsome resentment if they were asked to sign up to a biometric card on the ground that they were foreign nationals.
	I can understand perfectly well that people should be able to prove that they have a right to work and to gain access to a benefit or a public service. It may well be that a single secure document, rather than the vast number of documents that can be used now, would be a considerable help in that respect. I have certainly come across cases—I am sure that other hon. Member have, too—that involve people who find it difficult to convince an employer that they have the right to work, because they have a three-year-old status letter from the Home Office that is getting tatty and does notlook like the genuine article. I have also dealt with constituents who have had problems proving to the Benefits Agency that they have a right to gain accessto benefits. Responsible employers are reluctantto employ people whom they think might be subject to immigration control or perhaps do not have the right to work. I can understand that such things can be a two-way street and that people could benefit from being able to produce that secure document.
	I am also concerned about some points that were raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) about the consequences of a move towards cracking down on illegal working. I agree with absolutely everything that he said about the employers whom we should be targeting. Those people will not just be employing illegal workers; they will not be paying VAT, national insurance or tax properly, and so on. There is no question but that we should be targeting those people, but we will inevitably throw up conceivably very large numbers of people who are working illegally and people who have overstayed—some of whom have been here a long time and have families, mortgages and children in school—and we must have some way to deal with those people if were not going to create chaos. Chaos will certainly be caused in their lives if they are suddenly told after years of working that they are no longer able to do so.
	My right hon. Friend said that he would rule out an amnesty because it would become a magnet. I have heard that sort of argument before, but it does not necessarily convince me if the rules are made clear enough. For example, in recent years, there was effectively an amnesty for asylum seeker families with children who had been here a certain length of time and whose children had been born before a particular date. I do not see any evidence at all that that led to lots more people coming to this country with their families to seek asylum because they thought that there might be another amnesty in two or three years. I am not necessarily convinced that an amnesty has to act as a magnet if the rules are made clear.

Neil Gerrard: If we are moving to a system that involves points-based migration controls and better controls on illegal working—something that we need to address through tackling employers—we somehow have to deal with the people who are in the country here and now, some of whom have been here for a long time. I would not argue for an out-and-out amnesty. I am saying, let us have some rules that look at how long someone has been in the country and how long they have been working. Perhaps in the first place we could just give them a limited leave to remain—in other words, the possibility of earning the right to stay here permanently. Whether we go down that road or not, I agree absolutely with my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that the Government have to be prepared to deal with those people, and to do so systematically, if we are not going to cause a lotof problems for individuals. I know where those individuals will end up when they get those problems: in our constituency surgeries, and in large numbers in the inner-city parts of London.

Stewart Jackson: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, but the problems to which he refers already exist for legal migrants in this country. They are being exploited by some employers, they live in houses in multiple occupation, and they are displacing low-skill and low-wage indigenous host community work forces and that is causing community cohesion problems—something that the hon. Member for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) has drawn attention to. The Government have to look at all those issues. I am sure that the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) will not agree with me, but the Government have to look at the impact of both legal and illegal immigration on the local delivery of services.

Neil Gerrard: Of course the Government have to look at the impact of migration on delivery of services, but where I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I would part company is on the question of whether migration is good for the economy. I think that, in general, migration has been good for the economy. There is no question but that, when people are working illegally and being exploited, that affects many other people.
	I will try to conclude my remarks, because I know that other hon. Members wish to speak. I shallrefer quickly to a couple of other points in the Bill. Clause 16 allows conditions to be imposed on people with limited leave to remain in relation to reporting and residence. I can see the arguments in the specific cases that have been cited, but the drafting of that clause leaves the provision very wide. It could apparently be made to apply to far more people than were referred to in the debate earlier. That is another example of where more clarity is needed in the Bill.
	On new evidence and appealing, I understand the arguments, but I again agree with the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen: if all that happens is what is proposed in the Bill, that will lead to more clogging of the system. It will lead to people reapplying, paying again and going round and round. If we did have a "minded to refuse" stage, that would be a way of cutting through that and getting rid of some of the problems.
	The final issue that I want to mention is deportation. I am concerned about the threshold that is being suggested. It covers a wide range of offences. We need to be sure that the process will allow for proper consideration in relation to anybody who is making the claim on human rights grounds or in connection with the refugee convention. The issue is a bit like illegal working in that it has the potential to throw up cases of families who have been settled here for many years. We need to think about the impact on the family when we are looking at whether to deport someone. I donot have any problem whatsoever with deporting somebody who has been convicted of serious offences, but the list could include people who have not committed such a serious offence. We could be talking about a first-time offender who has done something stupid behind the wheel of a car and who ends up with a sentence of more than 12 months. That person could have been in the country for a long time and have a family. We need to get the balance right.
	I said initially that I could see the reasoning behind much of what is in the Bill. There are issues of principle that I do not have any problem with, but there is an enormous amount of detail that we need to go through in the later stages to get things right. Otherwise, I am afraid that we are going to end up with powers that are so wide that we will not be able to get things right in the regulation.

David Davies: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The hon. Lady need only listen to some of the comments that have been made by members of her own Front Bench, who have referred to the fact that certain minorities that have come to this country have sadly not integrated very well. Her Government, and perhaps previous Governments, bear some of the responsibility for that because of the rather pernicious ideology of multiculturalism, which encouraged people to celebrate the things that made them different, rather than to celebrate the fact that we are all British and live in this great and wonderful country.
	I fear that the Bill will do little to change anything. It will certainly not change the weight of numbers coming into the country, which is putting severe strain on our social services and housing services, and, in some areas, on our schools and hospitals. It is certainly putting a strain on wages. The Welsh Affairs Committee is carrying out an inquiry into globalisation. One of the papers from the CBI rather gloatingly referred to the fact that the large number of immigrants has pushed down wages for lower skilled workers. The CBI is absolutely delighted about that, of course. It said that that had kept down wage inflation, which it saw as a perfectly good thing. Many of those who work at the lower end of society—although that is not a phrase that I like to use very much; I am talking about those who work on lower pay—would not see that as a terribly good thing. Many of those people are themselves recent immigrants.

Stewart Jackson: Does my hon. Friend share my scepticism of Labour Members who complain about the attitude of Conservative Members to EU migrants when their Ministers' projection of the number of such migrants was out by a factor of 25? Does he also agree that it is not a badge of honour for our country that many people from EU countries are being exploited, live in poor housing, have poor educational attainment and are earning well below the minimum wage? That is not something to be proud of, for this Government or any other.

David Davies: It is very shameful. A case recently came to my attention concerning a young lady from Poland who had been exploited in a shocking fashion, and that sort of thing is widespread. My hon. Friend makes an important point.
	A number of parts of the Bill are well worth supporting in themselves even though they will not change anything, but even those are not all that they are cracked up to be. I am sure that the provision relating to automatic deportation will play very well in the tabloids, and Ministers will be hoping that all sorts of left-wing pressure groups jump up and condemn them so that, paradoxically, the Government will look rather good in the pages of the  Daily Mail, but as my Front-Bench colleagues have pointed out, the measure is not what it is cracked up to be.
	Why on earth should somebody have to be sentenced to 12 months in prison before they face the threat of automatic deportation? We all know that it is virtually impossible to get into a British prison these days. One has to do something very bad indeed as a first offence to be sentenced to more than 12 months in prison. I should be interested to know whether the 12 months relates to the sentence passed by the judge or the sentence that is actually served, which is of course usually a fraction of that passed by the judge.
	I put it to Labour Members that if somebody repeatedly breaks the law—by breaking into houses or cars, or shoplifting, for example—but does not get more than 12 months in prison, why on earth should they not face deportation? We heard earlier about the case of the Somali sex offender who had carried out one sex offence and been to prison, was released but not deported because somebody said that his human rights would be abused, and was then put back in prison having been convicted of another sexual offence. Presumably, the same people will be jumping up and down and bleating if there is any suggestion that he be sent back to Somalia, because of course it is a terribly dangerous place and he might come to some harm. Yet every single right-thinking person in this country is thinking to themselves that if it is a dangerous place and he will come to some harm there, that is the very reason he should be deported there as quickly as possible, instead of being left in the holiday camps that pass for prisons in this country these days.
	I ask the Minister again why, according to the Bill, somebody who assaults an immigration officer will face a maximum prison sentence of only 51 weeks. The message will go out to people involved in immigration cases that they can get away with assaulting immigration officers and, if they do so, they will not necessarily face the threat of deportation because they will not receive a prison sentence of more than one year.
	There is another issue that concerns me very much. It is not the fact that immigration officers are getting extra powers. Clearly that needs to happen, although it would be much better if they were being given these powers along with members of different police forces and we had a unified border security force, which at least two of the major political parties in the House are calling for. What worries me is the fact that this is likely to lead to yet another series of spurious claims against the IND, in addition to those currently being made, all funded by taxpayers' money.
	A year ago I was told that millions of pounds are being paid out by the IND as a result of spurious claims, and I refrained from making that statement because I thought that it would be best to try to check the facts. I tabled a written question last May and was told that I could not have an answer. I tabled another one in June and was told that somebody would write to me. Back in September or October somebody wrote to me and said that they would write to me with some details soon. I then tried the House of Commons Library, asking it how much money is being paid out in compensation claims to asylum seekers. I was told that the member of staff in the Library had been told by the IND that under no circumstances was it prepared to give those figures. I then started making freedom of information requests, and I was told that it would cost too much money to tell me how much money had been paid out in claims. I then made a freedom of information request to find out whether the Home Office had talked to the IND about any of my queries, and it looked as though it had, but it was not prepared to tell me about that either, for security reasons.
	I put it to the Minister that the Government are already paying out probably tens of millions of pounds in entirely bogus claims to asylum seekers who are probably claiming that their human rights have been breached because they have had to wait a couple of extra days or weeks for a ruling from the IND. I challenge the Minister, if that is not true, to tell us how much money has been paid out in claims to asylum seekers. I put it to her that, after one year of trying very hard, a Member of Parliament ought to have access to fairly basic information such as that.
	I finish by saying to Members of the House that I get rather tired of being called a fascist, a racist, a xenophobe and all the rest of it for simply pointing out that unlimited, uncontrolled immigration into this country is not a good thing. I remember that when I was dealing with the IND in a personal capacity, I went up to Birmingham one day with my wife, as I had done on a number of occasions, taking all my forms and the money in a brown envelope— [Interruption.] I did not get into this place as a result of that. The case officer I was dealing with, who had no idea that I was a Member of the Welsh Assembly, looked at me in surprise and said, "Do you know, I don't meet many people like you."  [Laughter.] I walked into that. The case officer said that he had never met anyone who had gone so far out of their way to obey the rules. Hesaid, "You are very definitely in a minority." My fear is that people such as me, my wife and other immigrants to this country who obey the rules will continue to bein a minority and this Bill will change absolutely nothing.

Jon Cruddas: I am not sure how to follow the speech made by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies), but I found it thoroughly enjoyable, although he gave us a bit too much information, as Mrs. Davies might agree.
	Many of the ideas in the Bill are rational, as the Government are seeking to restore the integrity of the system, and many of the ideas come from the work of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I welcome the comments made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) and my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and agree with many of the points that they raised. I shall deal with a couple of aspects of the Bill, and particularly the consequences of clauses 23 and 24, which seek to clamp down on the employment of illegal workers.
	At the outset, I should state that it is correct to clamp down on employers who abuse migrant labour, because shocking stories of such abuse abound in every constituency. Later I shall mention a couple of cases of such abuses that I have been told about in my constituency. However, like my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, I am concerned about the effects of the clauses on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
	Section 21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006 introduced a new offence of knowingly employing an illegal worker, and it provided associated powers to obtain a warrant to enter and search premises to arrest an individual. Clause 23 introduces an express power of arrest, and clause 24 puts in place a new regime of penalties for knowingly employing an illegal worker. It also introduces an express power to search a firm's personnel records. On the face of it, the clauses might help to stop the abuse of people at work.
	Overall, the Government's strategy is pretty clear: there is the general "fit for purpose" review of the Home Office, the introduction of the points-based migration system and the introduction of ID cards; also, the tough language of clampdowns is used when migration is discussed. Now, the Government are bearing down ever more systematically on those employing unregularised migrants. In general, we are witnessing a total overhaul of the immigration system, not least because the subject tops people's concerns in poll after poll on their overall priorities for Government activity. The clauses are the next pieces to be put on the board in the overhaul of the Home Office.
	The obvious question is why the problem was not dealt with before. Presumably, the answer lies in the Home Office's history of chaos, but I posit that there might also be something to the idea that in the past a blind eye was turned to tacit illegal employment. That is partially accounted for by the fact that migrant labour is seen as a key element in building our north America-style flexible labour markets. I have travelled around the country a fair bit in the past couple of months, and I have seen case after case of appalling abuse of migrant labour. There is no doubt that the issue resonates and touches raw nerves in many communities. It is almost the outstanding issue for public policy debate, so I welcome the initiatives in the Bill to regularise some of the employment of illegal workers.
	In my community, I use the same three examples time and again to demonstrate the way in which illegal migrants have pushed down local pay rates, have been chronically abused by landlords, and are being employed at less than the minimum wage. I came across all three case studies on the same day. The first concerned one of a gang of Lithuanian migrants who were employed under a public contract for £15 a day. The second case involved a roofer who came to see me, who said that his hourly pay rate had fallen by £2.50 in the preceding six months. The third case concerned a bloke who had put an oven in his shed and hired it out, so that a gang of east European migrant workers could hot-bed it at the bottom of his garden. Those are little stories that resonate across the country, and everyone has their own local examples of such chronic abuses by employers of some of the most abused workers in the country. I therefore understand the Government's objectives in introducing the measures.
	However, it is difficult to get a clear, empirical picture of the patterns and the effects of migration in this country. The Office for National Statistics estimates that the total population was in the order of 60.2 million for 2005, and that has gone up by 375,000, net. Some 235,000 of that increase is made up by net migration. Alongside that, it is a commonly accepted statistic that there are about 600,000 A8 nationals. As was mentioned earlier, there were some 450,000 failed applications for asylum, and that figure does not include the dependants. In any analysis of the effects of illegal migration, we should add people who are trafficked, over-stayers and students who are still in the system.
	Earlier today, I referred to the Greater London authority's estimate that there are 320,000 unregularised migrants in London alone. That figure, too, does not include dependants. My borough in east London has a total population of 174,000, so if we accept the figure of 320,000, it means that there are enough people with no formal status in the city to make up a large London borough. Many of those people are the most exploited in our society. They are abused by employers, landlords—every MP in the country will have countless stories of such abuses in their constituency—and criminals. We have many local examples of crime in which no come-back is provided by the authorities, because the migrant's status is so ambiguous. They are therefore preyed onby criminal gangs. That is the right background against which to consider the consequences of clauses 23and 24.
	In London, the obvious consequence of bearing down on employers who abuse migrant workers who have no status in this country will be to push tens of thousands of workers out of their illegal work. Many of those workers have been here for years, and many have dependants. One could argue that the city is dependent on migrant flows of labour. No one knows how many people would be affected, but arguably tens of thousands of people in London would be turfed out of work. How those people will survive remains a mystery to me. I see many cases involving people—and their children—who have no status in this country and who have been here for many years, just as my hon. Friend said about his constituency of Walthamstow, which is down the road from mine. Those people may be barely surviving at subsistence level, because they work illegally at very low rates of pay.
	Will the Bill deal with just one part of the problem—illegal working—while creating another problem for councils and public policy makers, across the country but especially in poorer urban communities, which bear a disproportionate strain as a result of the migration of illegal groups? Many people do not have a visible work profile because of their illegality. Will a consequence of the Bill be to force people out of the shadows, through sheer destitution? Is it not time to address the issue of people who are already here, but who are undocumented? Deportation will not be a remedy if literally tens of thousands of people are to be turfed out of work, to appear on the radar of public policy makers.

Jon Cruddas: I totally agree with that. That was an element of the Queen's Speech debate on the future of the ONS and the acceptance that it does not carry out a rigorous analysis of the population and the demographics of the country. That is especially the case in urban environments because of the sheer velocity of change in many communities—change that has taken place off the radar of public policy makers because it has occurred since the census data of 2001. That is also especially true in communities such as mine, where we have the lowest-cost housing market in Greater London. That has served as a sort of magnetic pull to migrants into London and within London in search of low-cost housing.
	I take the point of the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson). My point is whether the Bill, as part of an overall overhaul of the Home Office, will simply serve to compound the exploitation of these groups of people who have been around the system for many years and who will not be taken out of the country, not least because the unit cost is so high and because there are thousands of them. If there are 320,000 such people in London and if the Bill does what it seeks to do, tens of thousands of people will turn up on the public radar in abject and desperate need of help. We will not remove them from the country; therefore we need an adequate public policy response in anticipation of those consequences of the Bill. Surely that is not too much to ask.
	The matter should be adequately addressed through a wider debate around the consequences of clauses 23 and 24. I fear that, if we do not do that, we might well be building a major series of social problems for ourselves as, through sheer destitution, those who currently have no visibility are forced into the public realm. We should acknowledge the consequences of that as we discuss the Bill.

Stewart Jackson: I am conscious as I begin my remarks that I am in the presence of the hon. Members for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer) and for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas), both of whom have had issues around the growth of the extremist and racist politics of the British National party. An unfortunate aspect of my election to Parliament on 5 May 2005 was that a candidate standing for "National Front—Britons Not Refugees" polled 931 votes in the Peterborough constituency. None of us here should have any truck with the racists and extremists of the right or give them any credibility.
	The Bill is a sort of reverse curate's egg; it is generally quite good, but bad in parts. There are some aspects on which all Conservative Members could agree. We agree with the five-year plan established in 2005 that proposes a points-based scheme. I am delighted to see that the Government have adopted a Conservative policy, one which we expounded at the 2005 general election.
	I am disappointed in many respects, such as ID cards and the fact, as Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front-Bench spokesmen have said, that we do not have a consolidated Bill to consolidate all six previous Bills in the last nine years. We do not have an integrated borders agency, and the Minister did not make the case as to why that was.
	I agree with much that the hon. Member for Dagenham said, which brought back an experience I had a few months ago when I went out with regulatory authorities, including the police and trading standards, in the central ward of my constituency, which is approximately 70 per cent Kashmiri. I went into a restaurant and in the basement was a room full of about 14 bunks, as well as rosaries and candles. They belonged to people on the very margins of society; Polish immigrants who were being paid a pittance to be picked up in white vans and taken to pick vegetables in south Lincolnshire. Those exploited people are the by-products of a system that is not working and over which the Government have presided.
	The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who is not in his place, said that there was an element of over-reaction to tabloid pressure in this Bill. Itis reactive and hasty and driven by a media agenda, and essentially, it fails to protect our borders. Most importantly, it fails to meet the requirements of the Home Secretary's undertakings, prior to the foreign prisoners debacle last May, that the system would be simplified, especially in the case of any new legislation.
	The Bill does not do anything permanently to rectify the systemic failures in the Home Office and ignores key challenges in existing legislation that will militate against the effectiveness of the Bill. I referred earlier to the Human Rights Act and to the European convention on human rights. I am afraid that I received an unsatisfactory reply from the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality who, uncharacteristically, made a partisan point about previous election campaigns. I was not talking about that; I was talking about the operation of the new Bill.
	The Bill is complicated and smacks of authoritarian gimmickry. We must look at the Bill in the context of the Government's record. Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will be partisan; it is a shambolic record that has delivered the foreign prisoners debacle. One hundred and twenty-nine of the original 1,023 identified by the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) in April last year have been deported, 79 of whom had committed serious offences.
	I have a personal interest in the issue. I have a category B prison in my constituency, HMP Peterborough. On 29 April, I asked a named-day written question to find out how many prisoners were released in the12 months to 31 March 2006 from Peterborough prison. It was not a difficult question; it was not technical and would not require huge manpower or resources to find the answer. I got the answer eight months later after tackling the Prime Minister on 11 October at Prime Minister's questions, making two points of order to the Speaker and tabling several more questions to Home Office Ministers. That is unacceptable. In pursuit of my proper business—holding the Executive to account on something straightforward—all I got was a blank wall and obfuscation from the Home Office about an issue of concern to my constituents.
	There is a postscript. We have now learnt that55 prisoners were released and the Home Office is now refusing to tell me what they were convicted of because to do so would incur disproportionate cost. Again, that is unacceptable. I do not blame the Under-Secretary, but I will be in correspondence with her colleagues on the issue.
	The specialist team that was set up to track down these foreign prisoners closed down last June for no reason. In the media, if not necessarily in this House, the Home Secretary said that those prisoners from outside the EU should be bribed with £2,500 of public money—money that my hardworking families in Peterborough have contributed to the Exchequer—to go home. What sort of system is that?
	The cost of the IND to the Exchequer went from £300 million in 1999 to £1.9 billion in 2004 and it is still projected that, within the next two fiscal years, the figure will be £1.5 billion. It is a good thing that staff there are not getting performance-related pay, as it has been a shambles and a disaster.
	Since 1997 about 375,000 asylum seekers have entered the United Kingdom. We have confirmation that only 85,000 have left. Those figures are from the Home Office. Even as recently as the third quarter of last year, we learned that the number of removals of asylum seekers had dropped by 28 per cent. Despitethe Government's rhetoric, the macho posturing of the Home Secretary and his undertaking to deal with the issue and to get tough—he said that he stands shoulder to shoulder with the people—that did not happen. Unfortunately, like many of the Prime Minister's promises, that promise was broken.
	Between 430,000 and 870,000 illegal immigrants—the Government do not know the number—have settled in the United Kingdom in the past eight years. That brings me to the point that I raised in an intervention with respect to EU migrants. I accept that that is not strictly covered by the Bill, but such wrong-headedness, a projection that was so way out, does not inspire one with confidence in Home Office projections. There has been a particularly negative effect on community cohesion issues in my constituency, not necessarily affecting white Anglo-Saxon Protestant residents, but affecting the established Kashmiri-Pakistani community which has been in Peterborough since the 1960s and 1970s.
	I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for a diverse constituency where we speak 93 languages and get on extremely well. Two years ago one of our councillors from Kashmir had the honour to be the city mayor. The fact that he was a Conservative was a bonus. The Central ward is represented by three Pakistani Conservative councillors. The reason I feel passionate about these matters is that I do not want to give an opening to the racists to foment trouble. The United Kingdom Independence party is in many respects on the fringes of that debate. It is the respectable side of the British National party.
	Intolerable stress has been placed on housing, with families of 14 or 16 living in a small terraced house. Unscrupulous landlords have been buying up almost entire streets in an established area in the city centre. Primary care services have been under massive pressure, and we have had huge problems at our local primary schools with children whose first language is not English. We have not had the funding to deal with those issues and reassure people that migration is controlled and that they need not worry about people with different languages and cultures. That is the problem.
	I am conscious that others want to speak, so I shall end with my two specific concerns about the Bill. Clauses 28 to 35 deal with deportation. I made the point to the Minister earlier about the Human Rights Act 1998, but he dismissed it. The cliché about the elephant in the room seems appropriate. If we do not consider the interpretation and the ramifications of the Human Rights Act and realise that it will be used, or abused, by those who should not use it, we will not reach the objectives of the Bill in respect of deportation.
	I understand that the provision derives from the Chahal decision of 1996 and the European convention on human rights, but it is foolish to include in the Bill clauses that solidify a legalistic loophole. That will lead to obfuscation, delay and frustration in the system. Even if the Bill becomes law, the powers will be toolax. I referred earlier to the operational enforcement manual, which concedes that judges can only be advised in respect of determination—it is not part of law at present. That is a mistake.
	There are 9,651 foreign prisoners in UK prisons, up from 4,677 in 1997. Against that background and the problems that we will have dealing with them in future, I asked the Minister some specific questions, which I hope the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), will be able to answer. Why do we still not collect statistics on those who have been recommended for deportation order and those who are actually deported? That, as far as I know, is the current situation. Members of Parliament are regularly told that that information is not collected centrally.
	Why is the court in effect required to subordinate the national interest to so-called human rights? Why is there not an automatic presumption in favour of deportation following serious criminal behaviour? People are not sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or more for not paying their TV licence. Violence, sexual offences and drug offences come to mind in relation to such a sentence. Why are central records not kept on the immigration status of all those in the prison estate who have been convicted? I do not see the point of another Bill if previous Acts are not adhered to. Why is the Home Secretary not able to use the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to deport criminals? The Act allows the Government to do so.
	The second issue of concern is biometric immigration documents. In a good intervention, the hon. Member for Walthamstow sought reassurance, as do I. The measure smacks of sleight of hand with regard to ID cards—function creep, one might call it. It seeks to embed the concept of ID cards, which may be voluntary in a few years, in the public psyche, using immigration control and the so-called war against terror as the rationale for so doing. It is not right for the House to accept that rationale and the construction of an ID database under that cover. If the raison d'être of the proposal and the clauses is to deal with illegal working, why have the Government not made more use of the relevant existing legislation—the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996?
	Finally, the Bill contains much that I would support if it were enacted, but there is a long way to go to repair the damage done to the security of the country by the Government's open-door immigration policy over the past 10 years. The Bill is 10 years too late. The public, sadly, do not believe a word the Government say about immigration. That is a testament to the culture of spin and obfuscation. It all began back in 1997 with the decision to rescind the bilateral agreement with France. That was followed by Sangatte and the green light, and the process has continued ever since. I hope the Bill will go some way towards ameliorating the calamitous series of policy failures, but only a Conservative Government will have the political will and the nous to protect our borders and our people.

Ann Cryer: I welcome the Second Reading of the UK Borders Bill, especially the aspects of it that deal with illegal immigrants and with human trafficking. I also welcome the setting up of the new centre in Sheffield to deal with trafficking, and the changes in the law that will enable prosecutions to take place regardless of whether the act of human trafficking has taken place inside or outside the UK, and irrespective of the nationality of the person carrying out the act. I trust that those measures will lead to a marked reduction in the sum total of human misery perpetuated frequently on vulnerable women and children.
	There is some disquiet about the availability of free health care to those who have not contributed to the costs of the health service. A solution could be found by introducing a requirement for those entering this country, or their sponsors, to purchase private health insurance as a prerequisite for the granting of an entry clearance visa and until indefinite leave to remain is granted. Most UK citizens would not travel abroad without such cover.
	The reintroduction in the Bill of exit or embarkation controls, year by year, until everyone is counted in and counted out, will certainly help us to determine the future demands on our health, education and social services. As an old-fashioned socialist and a believerin a planned economy, I have never been able to understand the attraction of an open-door policy. To plan future provision in education, health and so on, we must have some idea of how many we are catering for at any given time. This is another good reason for the introduction of ID cards. They will not defeat terrorism, but they will give us a more accurate idea of how many citizens will need the different kinds of provision in the coming years, and even of how many will not be entitled to it.
	I would like to mention yet again the need for a specific criminal offence of forcing to marry, which is a way round immigration control that is both cruel and un-Islamic. The forced marriages unit has confirmed that, to date, no one has been prosecuted under current legislation. Despite the increased awareness of forced marriage, the number of cases increases. This might be attributable to the demographics involved—namely, a relatively youthful population reaching marriageable age. Sending the right message—that forced marriage is both illegal and un-Islamic—would have a powerful deterrent effect.

Angela Watkinson: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for her tenacity in dealing with this ongoing problem, not only in her constituency but nation wide. Does she accept, however, that, among many of the faith communities, arranged marriages are often very successful? In those circumstances, young people are introduced but there is no coercion to marry. It is left up to the young people to decide whether they could have a happy life together. Does she agree that that kind of halfway house might provide a way for us to make inroads into preventing forced marriages, by offering it as an acceptable cultural alternative?

Stewart Hosie: I welcome a number of items in the Bill. When the Bill was published, the Minister laid out in a press statement a number of additional proposed powers for immigration officers: to arrest people smugglers or traffickers, which is to be welcomed; to detain at ports those whom they suspect of having committed a crime; and to arrest those believed to have been fraudulently acquiring asylum support, which is also to be welcomed.
	The Minister also said that there should be access to Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs data to track down illegal immigrants. I have a brief question about that. I can certainly see the appeal of accessing HMRC data. I wonder, however, whether there is not an issue about the use of such data, in conjunction with all the other biometric and non-biometric data held on the central database, for a purpose that was not provided for. I am sure that the issue will be subject to detailed scrutiny at a later stage. I certainly hope that it will be.
	However, I come back to the guts of the issue. I was surprised, as were many journalists, that the powers proposed were not already in place. It seemed extraordinary that immigration officers did not have the power to arrest people smugglers or even to detain those whom they believed may have committed a crime. It was even more extraordinary given that since Labour came to power in 1997 there have been immigration Acts plus various crime Acts and terrorism Acts almost every year—the Special Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997, the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 and the measures taken in 2004 and 2006.
	The problems of illegal immigration and, in particular, people trafficking are not new. In June 2000, following the deaths of 58 people in the back of a refrigerated wagon, the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), said that discussions were ongoing about improving port security. In January 2002, another Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), announced that the maximum jail sentence for people traffickers would increase to 14 years. In 2002, during the Sangatte crisis, the Prime Minister said that Navy ships would intercept people traffickers, as long as they were not in the channel tunnel, when we would need submarines. He did not actually say that last bit. By 2003, the BBC reported that a senior Metropolitan police officer had warned of a growing threat, and by April last year, the Prime Minister announced that Serious Organised Crime Agency law enforcement officers would target people traffickers.
	After all that—and such things were happening almost daily—we found that the powers to detain and arrest did not exist. I welcome those powers. However, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) mentioned an anomaly, which the Law Society of Scotland haslaid out clearly. It asked why, notwithstanding the non-application of the Police and Criminal EvidenceAct 1984 in Scotland, immigration officers should not have the power of detention. It went on to ask why clause 21, which relates to the forfeiture of detained property, applies only to England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
	I do not support unified or uniform legislation for the sake of it; I would prefer that the entire immigration and border control regime were devolved to Scotland. However, in this instance, when we are taking border security extremely seriously, there is a real question.

Stewart Hosie: The Minister can intervene once I have asked my questions. I listened carefully to what he said earlier about having a working solution agreed with the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland.
	My difficulty has two parts. First, a working solution must be within existing legislation, which requires a police officer. An immigration officer cannot detain without a police officer, so there is no change at all. Secondly, the Minister mentioned the seven international ports, but there are hundreds of ports, airports and harbours where people can land, leave and enter, from Eyemouth right around the mainland close to Kirkcubright and on every inhabited and many uninhabited islands. So how will that working solution work? Will there be any change that would mean that immigration officers could detain without a police officer, other than in pursuance of an existing immigration law?

Stewart Hosie: I thank the Minister for that. I look forward to reading it. I can imagine the conversation with Scottish Executive Ministers with less than three months until the election—"Oh no, it's a nationalist issue. Don't touch it!", although I am sure that it was slightly more detailed than that.
	The Bill also includes the introduction of biometric identity cards for a class of people. Let me return for a moment to the debate on identity cards proper. The London School of Economics identity project report of June 2005 has been much quoted, particularly in respect of the costs and practicality of the Identity Cards Act 2006, to which I turn to emphasise a point about this Bill. Chapter 10 of the report, entitled "Race, Discrimination, Immigration and Policing" stated:
	"Throughout the world, identity cards are associated with discrimination ... individuals may be compelled to produce those cards ... In every country that grants this power to their police, questions inevitably arise as to whether this power is used ... disproportionately, against immigrants, minorities, or other selected groups."
	It states that the then Identity Cards Bill
	"does not grant police the power to compel production."
	However, there is a real concern that this Bill may grant powers not only to the police but to others, authorised and possibly non-authorised. Clause 5(1)(b) states that regulations—not primary legislation—could require
	"a biometric immigration document to be used...in specified circumstances, where a question arises about a person's status in relation to nationality or immigration".
	The Library briefing states:
	"This could potentially be very wide, covering for example: employment; access to benefits, NHS healthcare"
	and so on. Is that not a de facto requirement or compulsion? I look forward to what the Minister says about that. We could combine that information with the concerns raised in the Liberty briefing provided for this debate, which said:
	"In September 2004,  The Guardian...ran a story claiming that in the previous 15 months, 235 operations had been conducted adding 'The figures showed that those arrested included 717 failed asylum seekers but thousands more people have been stopped and questioned by immigration staff using powers which the police are banned from using.'...The creation of the biometric immigration document has the potential to be racially divisive."
	That raises the real question, asked by right hon. and hon. Members from all parties in previous debates, about a return to a de facto stop-and-search regime.

Kerry McCarthy: I represent a constituency with a high number of what are generically referred to as asylum seekers, although some of them might be refugees who have been granted leave to remain in this country because of the risk of persecution in their homeland. Many of those have become British citizens or are here as EU citizens, having come over from the Netherlands or Denmark, for instance. I am told that there are about 500 or so actual asylum seekers in Bristol, by which I mean those people who are waiting for their claims to be determined. However, many more are failed asylum seekers who have had their initial claims rejected. They are going through the appeals process or have—this applies to many of them—exhausted all legal avenues. In theory, they are waiting to be deported, but the practicality in my constituency at least is that because many hail from Somalia, there are problems with deporting them because of the difficult circumstances in that country. As such, many of them are likely to remain in this country for years to come.
	That is the context of my comments. My constituency in the city of Bristol, like the constituencies of many hon. Members in the Chamber, has seen the arrival of new migrant workers, but I want to talk about the impact of what are generically referred to as asylum seekers. Before I make more detailed points, however, I want to make it clear that it is my passionate belief that Bristol has benefited hugely from the contribution made by its various immigrant communities over the years, including those who have arrived here seeking asylum. I did not recognise the picture painted by the hon. Member for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies). He seemed to think that Huguenots, Jews and people from Uganda were okay. I would flag up the Irish community, people who have come down from Scotland, Afro-Caribbean communities, Somali communities, Pakistani-Kashmiri communities and Indian communities as communities that have all settled well in Bristol and contribute to life there. That is why I pressed him on the point and tried to get out of him exactly who was causing so much trouble in his area.
	Businesses in my constituency have told me that they would be unable to fill job vacancies were it not for the arrival of fairly significant numbers of people from Somalia and, more recently, eastern European migrant workers. Although unemployment in Bristol is low by recent historical standards, their comments raise interesting questions about the skills levels and the employability of the long-term unemployed who do not come from those groups, but that is probably a subject for another day.
	When I have visited schools in my constituency, I have met children from refugee and migrant communities, some of whom did not speak a word of English before they started school—indeed, some had never set foot in a classroom before. I have seen how well they have adapted to life here and how fluent they have become in the English language after only afew months in the city. They are to be commended for that. It is indicative that the city academy in my constituency, which has a high proportion of refugees, asylum seekers and children of migrant workers among its pupils, recently made it into the top 100 schools in the country in the contextual value added tables. That shows just how much these children can overcome. Having gone through horrendous experiences in their countries, they can achieve a huge amount in a small time, given the right support.
	I am proud of the way in which Bristol and my constituency in particular, which contains the most diverse areas of the city, have coped with the changes over recent years. Areas that were predominantly white until the last decade or so are now much more diverse, but peaceful co-existence is the rule rather than the exception. I was at the launch a few weeks ago of the Bob Woodward centre in Eastville, which is one of five community cohesion centres that are being piloted across the country. The aim is to bring different communities together under one roof and to foster co-operation and co-working. That is surely the way forward.

Kerry McCarthy: It very much depends on how we would handle that. I accept that we need controls on immigration, but in some cases there is an economic need to allow in more migrant workers, particularly skilled migrant workers, on which the Government have already legislated. For those people who come here seeking asylum, we have a humanitarian duty to give them refuge. It is not a numbers game; it is a moral case.
	It would be foolish to present a completely rose-tinted picture of what community relations are like in Bristol. Although I believe that the vast majority of people in the city are sympathetic to the needs of genuine refugees and have given them great support, there is undeniably resentment and tension, especially in some of the white working-class areas of my constituency where a serious shortage of affordable housing, pressure on public services, and competition for regeneration funding and even for fairly small pots of money can cause tension. Some people in those communities feel that their needs have been overlooked. That is why I welcome the Bill. It is important that we reassure people that the asylum and immigration system is not a free-for-all and is based on genuine need, whether it be the need of asylum seekers for a safe haven from persecution or our economic need for migrant workers. It is in the interests of all the genuine asylum seekers in my constituency and the migrant workers who have filled the jobs that could not otherwise have been filled that we make it clear that Britain does not and will not tolerate abuse of its asylum and immigration system. I welcome the Bill as another step in tightening up our laws.
	I want to focus on a couple of measures. The introduction of biometric registration and identity cards will give us a means of identifying who a person is, what their immigration status is and whether they are entitled to work or to access state benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and others said that that will not only help us to identify those who are not entitled to be here or to claim benefits, but that it will also help those who are entitled to those things.
	I regularly deal with constituents who have leave to remain in this country and are entitled to work but who have a hard time convincing employers of that fact. The Royal Mail, for example, refuses to use the immigration and nationality directorate's employers hotline and insists that employees produce a new letter from the Home Office every 13 weeks, which harks back to the infamous 13-weeks letters that people used to get, telling them when their case would be dealt with. Every 13 weeks constituents come to me requiring another letter that they can show to the Royal Mail confirming their eligibility to work. I would welcome anything that makes life easier for them.
	I have also dealt with a number of cases of mistaken identity. For example, people at the tax credits office have confused constituents of mine with people with similar names and the same date of birth, and they have demanded the return of overpayments from them. Again, that could be solved if they had an identity card. It took the best part of a year to convince the office that it was pursuing the wrong person, so I very much welcome that aspect of the Bill.
	The other part of the Bill that I want to discuss deals with foreign prisoners, and introduces the assumption of automatic deportation for those who have been sentenced to 12 months or more in custody. It is with some trepidation that I raise the issue, given its sensitivity, but both the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) and the hon. Member for Monmouth mentioned the case of the Somali man who last week was convicted of a very serious sexual assault on a seven-year-old girl. He happens to be a constituent of mine, and the assault was made on another constituent of mine in the Barton Hill area of my constituency. The case raises a huge number of complex issues. I certainly would not say that I have the answer to the question of how we should deal with someone in that position, but it is worth airing some of the issues that it raises.
	The man in question, Sadiq Mohammed, is of Somali descent. He arrived in the United Kingdom in 1994, and after claiming asylum was given indefinite leave to remain. In 2000 he was convicted of several assaults on women, including one on a 14-year-old girl—although I believe in that case the charge was only one of common assault, nowhere near as serious as the most recent assault. Deportation was recommended, but, although not all the facts have emerged, we know that it was not carried out. I suspect that that was either because Mohammed had already been given indefinite leave to remain, or because of the continuing instability in Somalia.
	Mohammed served two years of his four-year sentence. Several years after his release, he carried out the appalling attack on the seven-year-old. Thankfully he was caught and has now been given an indeterminate sentence, but the question of whether he should now be deported has been raised by many of my constituents. Although there is no doubt that he is of Somali descent, it is now being suggested that he may be a Kenyan national who has never set foot in Somalia, and who claimed asylum on false pretences. Before Opposition Members try to use that against us, I should say that I gather his original claim was made before Labour came to office. In any event, many of my constituents believe that even if he were returned to Somalia, whatever risk of persecution or torture he might run as a result of deportation, by carrying out that appalling attack he has surrendered any claim to our compassion. Quite simply, they do not care what happens to him in Somalia or any other country to which he might be sent. They just want to ensure that he is never again free to walk the streets of Barton Hill.
	I should add that those who are calling most vociferously for Mohammed's deportation are members of the Somali community. That may be because the victim was a Somali child, but they have told me that, as refugees themselves, they feel that he has abused the hospitality of this country and that his presence here should no longer be tolerated.
	As I have said, the case is complex. As someone who has been accepted as a refugee, Mohammed has rights under the European convention on human rights and the Geneva convention, but I understand that even under current legislation, those rights can be overridden in the case of someone who has been convicted of a serious offence if he is considered to present a clear and grave danger to the community. Mohammed may therefore be eligible for deportation. I should welcome clarification of that point.
	I should also welcome clarification of what will happen to people who have been given indeterminate sentences. At what stage of their sentences will deportation be considered? The Minister has expressed the view that people should be deported as early in their sentences as possible, but there is a very high risk that Mohammed will reoffend—he had already carried out a series of attacks before the most recent assault—and the effects on any future victim would last a lifetime. How can we ensure that we do not merely export the problem?
	Obviously, as a constituency Member I feel that my priority is the welfare of the children living in my constituency, but if it is decided to deport Mohammed early in his sentence, who knows whether he will be allowed to walk the streets of Somalia, Kenya or wherever else he may be sent? Do we wash our hands of such people when they are deported, or do we still have a moral obligation to try to minimise the risk of their posing a risk to children elsewhere? People who had received lengthy prison sentences for, say, drug offences or serious violence would not be so obviously a risk to the community to which they were being sent. In cases in which children are the victims, we need to ask ourselves some serious questions.
	I welcome the Bill. I think that it will help to implement some of the measures that we have discussed to create a firmer, fairer asylum and immigration system. However, I should like some clarification of how it will affect people in my constituent's position.

Angela Watkinson: I apologise for having left the Chamber in the middle of the debate to attend an unavoidable meeting. I was particularly disappointed to miss the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Monmouth (David T.C. Davies) and for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson).
	The Bill could have been used to simplify and consolidate existing legislation. In his opening remarks the Minister said that there would be a consolidation Bill next year. If only this were it. There seems to be a great deal of consensus and good will across the Chamber about the need to introduce more robust but fair immigration legislation, and we must all work hard together to achieve a satisfactory outcome.
	The Bill is the fourth piece of legislation extending immigration officer powers since the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. It attempts to improve the mechanics of immigration without addressing the question of the level of immigration that will benefit the country while taking account of the labour market, public services and environmental and infrastructure issues. Parliament should hold a proper debate about demographics—population levels and distribution—every year, because circumstances change. In one year, the number of people required to come into the country might be very low, while in another year it might be very high. That debate should also take account of issues such as the number of people leaving the country, the availability of houses and jobs, skills shortages, and the number of places available in our schools and on our GP lists. A range of issues feed into the number of new people we need in the country and those should be the subject of open debate. I hope the Government will allow that.

Graham Stuart: Is not housing the most fundamental infrastructure provision for a population that is growing as a result of immigration and is not the Government's most signal failure in that respect their failure to provide proper amounts of housing for both the indigenous population and those coming into the country?

Angela Watkinson: As ever, Madam Deputy Speaker, I am guided by your advice.
	The London borough of Havering probably has a lower percentage of immigrants than any other London borough. If it is not the lowest percentage, it is the second lowest. That is certainly the case in Upminster, which is part of Havering. In Upminster can be seen the acceptable face of immigration: most of its immigrant community, small as it is, consists of professional and business people who make a positive contribution to the community.
	Just before Christmas, I was invited to a local restaurant for the inaugural dinner of the Emerson Park doctors' association. Emerson Park is a ward in my constituency. I was amazed to see no fewer than 60 doctors, mainly although not exclusively from the Indian sub-continent, representing every aspect of the health profession from paediatrics to geriatrics and just about everything in between and, of course, including GPs. When I congratulated them on having assembled such a large number of people from such a small residential area, they said "Oh, we are not all here. There are about 150 of us in all." That is an example of professionals making an essential contribution to the health service locally, and I am sure that that positive contribution from the immigrant population is replicated throughout the country.
	There is no doubt that legislation is needed to secure our borders effectively and to ensure that all immigration is legal immigration. That is the crux of the matter. We want legal immigration. We do not want illegal immigration. Everyone who wants to settle here should apply through the proper channels. There is a need to ensure that new arrivals enter the country legally, that those who are already here illegally are identified and deported, and that those who have abused the hospitality of their host nation by committing crimes and who have served custodial sentences are deported on release from prison. That is an enormous challenge. No one is pretending that that is an easy thing to deal with. It is delicate and difficult but we have to grasp the nettle.

Angela Watkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I have not attended an equivalent ceremony in my town hall. I appreciate the value of such ceremonies and of the great interest that immigrant parents take in their children's education, and how well immigrant children do in our schools. Often, they excel and outrun the indigenous children. There is a great lesson for us to learn there. The success of children in schools depends largely on the interest that their parents take in whether they attend school, participate fully and do their homework. That is reflected in the results in our schools.
	This is an enormous challenge. The numbers that we are dealing with are vast, but it must be done in fairness to genuine applicants who abide by the rules and to the existing community, including law-abiding immigrants who are working and contributing.
	In 2006, the Government produced their immigration and nationality directorate review, the snappily titled, "Fair, effective, transparent and trusted: rebuilding confidence in our immigration system"—a candidate for landscape paper if ever there was one. It highlighted its aims by stating:
	"We will have biometric ID requirements in place for the highest risk countries".
	Who could argue against that, except that there are all sorts of caveats about the way in which that is put in place. All sorts of safeguards are required. I shall come to that later. Other aims in the review were to
	"penalise rogue employers who employ illegal workers by implementing fines for employers and seizing the assets of persistent offenders; and disbarring company officers who consent to or connive in knowingly employing illegal workers"
	and to
	"work across government to shut down fraudulent access to benefits".
	That is a particularly interesting one. I have anecdotal evidence from a constituent who tried to report people who they knew to be making fraudulent claims to social security. They were told that the information was not wanted and turned away. They have not been taken seriously. There is an obvious opportunity there for social security offices to co-operate and take seriously the information that is given to them by neighbours who have observed things. It is not always immigrants. Sometimes it is for other reasons, but the principle is the same.
	People feel a great sense of injustice, particularly if they get up every morning and go out to do a job that may not be very well paid. They may not enjoy it much but they are paying their taxes, keeping a roof over their heads and taking responsibility for their own lives and those of their children. When they see people cheating the system, they get angry. Social security officials whom they contact should be prepared to take that information seriously.
	Another aim of the review was to
	"change the law to make deportation the presumption for foreign national prisoners and to make their appeals non-suspensive".
	I understand that that means not subject to appeal on refugee and human rights grounds. I shall be corrected if I have misunderstood that, but non-suspensive appeals is a new term to me. The review goes on:
	"we will legislate to remove requirements for the consent of the prisoner".
	We will all applaud that if it is possible to implement and enforce it. There is some doubt as to whether EU legislation and human rights legislation will make that possible. I hope that the Minister will clarify what scope the Government have to make such laws that will not be superseded by European legislation.
	The review says that another aim is to
	"strengthen and streamline the law and Immigration rules, to speed up and simplify the immigration system".
	I feel that the Bill falls down on that component in particular.

Angela Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is right. I am sure that every hon. Member has had similar cases in their advice surgeries, or e-mails and letters from people who are utterly frustrated by trying to navigate the system and get decisions made. Unfortunately, some of them resort for advice to people who are often not qualified to give it. They spend large sums of money trying to get decisions made. Having expended all their savings, they will contact their MP, only to find that their MP has a hotline to the immigration service and can get those answers free of charge and that they have made a serious mistake. I constantly advise people against using such advisory services.
	The Bill intends to implement the measures proposed in the "Fair immigration" review but they need drawing together. To address those problems effectively, we need a proper borders police. I am pleased that hon. Members on both sides of the House support that, not least my honourable neighbour, the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), with whom I share a constituency boundary.
	A borders police would incorporate the powers of immigration officers, police officers and Customs and Excise officers in a comprehensive set of skills. That would deal with all those issues much more effectively than separate authorities. It is necessary that the borders police have the expertise to intercept people traffickers and their victims.
	The new powers conferred by the Bill will enable immigration officers to detain individuals at ports—I am intrigued by this—pending the arrival of a police officer, for a maximum of three hours. I am not clear where those police officers will be. Will they be within the environment of the port or airport, or will they be in the next town down the road? If they are in the nearest police station, suppose it takes them more than three hours to arrive. It is possible that there will not be a police officer available to attend within the three hours, so what then? Clearly, there will be serious doubt about the individual's right of entry. They cannot be detained any longer because the three hours have expired, so what happens next? They cannot leave the port or the airport. Do they just go to the back of the queue and start queuing again? We need clarification on what will happen. All those problems could be overcome with borders police, because they would have the skills and authority to deal with the issues at the same time.
	Also absent is a proper code of practice so that immigration officers know exactly what factors displayed by an applicant would entitle the detention provision to be used and what conditions should be attached. We must address those serious issues if we are to ensure that such draconian powers are used properly. Absconding from detention and/or assaulting an immigration officer attracts a £5,000 fine, which is a huge sum. Obstruction attracts a £1,000 fine. There is only a thin likelihood that offenders would have the means to pay such fines. If they do not have the means, the fines are pointless. All three offences are punishable with a prison sentence of up to 51 weeks, which is just one week short of the year that is required to trigger the automatic detention rules. Why make it necessary for a separate application to deport someone in such cases? The meaning of "automatic" is unclear in that context. Does it mean that there will not be a right of appeal? Of course not—the use of "automatic" is rhetorical, because there is no such thing as automatic deportation.
	Many of the provisions in the Bill will help to strengthen immigration control and are therefore welcome. We all have the good will to try to move towards that end, and the new offence of dishonestly obtaining asylum support, the restriction on late evidence in appeals, the seizure of cash and property connected to crime, and new offences relating to the employment of illegal workers are all welcome. However, the use of biometric data, even under the special circumstances detailed in the Bill, must be approached with extreme caution. The same caveats apply to that narrow use as to the introduction of general identity cards, and the issue gives rise to many questions. For example, what information may be stored, and for how long? How secure is it, and to whom is it accessible? All those arguments emerged in the debate on ID cards and they apply just as much in this case as they do to the more general issue. It could be the thin end of a very large wedge, as it may be softening us up for the highly controversial introduction of compulsory ID cards for everyone.
	Clause 27 includes important measures to deal with the hideous trade in human misery. People trafficking has spiralled out of control. It is difficult to estimate the numbers involved, but between 700,000 and2 million women and children are probably trafficked across international borders every year. Some 60 per cent. of immigrants in the United Kingdom arrived here illegally, many of them in the back of lorries, so the interception of those vehicles at points of entry is essential. However, it is not just lorries that are the problem—we must not forget boats.
	In my boating days, a yellow flag had to be flown when one returned from abroad. Customs and Excise officers would come aboard, and they had the right to search the vessel. My boating days are over, so I am not sure whether that measure is still in place. However, there are hundreds of thousands of points at which a boat can enter the country—they are not necessarily large ports—and controls are required at all of them. We must be able to identify newly arrived boats, as people are not just sealed in the back of lorries but are smuggled into the country in other ways, too.
	Many of the people who are trafficked are young women who think that they are coming to the UK to find a job and start a new life. They are, however, forced into prostitution and/or labour exploitation while the traffickers grow rich on abuse and brutality. I believe that hon. Members will join together in trying to stamp out that dreadful trade, but more could be done if a border police force were established. I understand that we have agreed to sign the 2005 Council of Europe convention on action against trafficking in human beings. As I served on the Council of Europe committee that introduced that proposal, I take a particularly close interest in the matter. We should establish a UK border police force with the expertise—it is specific expertise, not just casual observation—to intercept traffickers and their victims at our borders. We should ensure that separate interviews are given, at all points of entry, to women and children travelling with an adult who is not their parent, guardian or husband, so that we can identify potential victims. We must strengthen co-ordination between the relevant Government Departments and the Serious Organised Crime Agency to ensure a coherent, joined-up approach. We must ensure that every police force and local authority has a strategy to deal with the suspected victims of trafficking. We should set up a helpline to provide information for women who have been trafficked and for people who suspect that others are the victims or perpetrators of exploitation.

Graham Stuart: My hon. Friend said that we need the will to make things happen, so does she share my concern that, throughout the Government's period in office, Home Office Ministers have come to the Chamber to introduce new legislation that is nearly always poorly thought through and that fails to tackle the fundamental problems that it seeks to tackle? They should have tried to make the existing rules work better and properly enforce them, as lack of political will and ministerial responsibility is the real problem.

Angela Watkinson: My hon. Friend's knowledge of the subject is second to none. His explanation is as I feared, and he has given a definitive answer on the problem.
	If foreign offenders were deported on conviction—that is not the law at the moment—we would need secure borders to prevent their return. Otherwise, people would offend and, in effect, be released without punishment and then come back in a revolving door system and reoffend. Some of my constituents might not have considered that aspect when they wrote to me to complain.
	We must reassure the general public on this matter. We are discussing exactly the sort of fear that the British National party is feeding on, particularly in areas of our country where there are very few immigrants. It appears to focus on areas where there are few immigrants and to frighten the people who live there by saying, "If you don't do something, your area will end up like that area over there where there are large numbers of immigrants." They then paint the picture that none of those immigrants makes any contribution at all to the life of the country. We must bear in mind such strategies and guard against them. The way to do that is to be absolutely open with people and explain to them that we are putting in place a robust system that is fair to everybody—to those wanting to come in and to those already here.
	Deportation powers are already in place. That foreign national prisoners were allowed to go free and out into the community was simply a result of administrative failure on the part of the Home Office. Several Members have raised what might be the crucial point: will the Minister say whether the European convention on human rights will deter enforcement of the new deportation measures in the Bill where individuals face the risk of torture or inhumane or degrading treatment in their own country? If it will do so, an alternative solution must be found to deal robustly with foreign offenders from that category of country so that they are not free from the threat of deportation no matter how often they offend or how grave their offence.

William Cash: My hon. Friend is addressing a central question that is extremely important. There is no reason on earth why we should not pass our own Westminster legislation to make sure that people are not abused or treated unfairly; we can provide safeguarding procedures. Does she not agree that the route that the Government are adopting through the Human Rights Act is causing more problems, partly because the categories in question extend from degrading treatment of the kind that includes torture down to the smacking of children? They are both included in the articles of the convention.

Andrew MacKinlay: From my selfish point of view, I welcome the fact that Mr. Speaker did not impose time limits in the debate. However, that is also indicative of the fact that this major piece of legislation has not attracted as much competition among Members to speak as is often the case in this House. Does that show that this legislature has become weary of such piecemeal legislation dealing with the whole question of combating illegal immigration, ensuring the rights of people with genuine refugee problems and so forth? There is a need for a consolidation Act, but we should ensure that it is a good Act and that it undergoes full and rigorous parliamentary scrutiny if and when it appears before us in about a year's time.
	I have been present all afternoon and I remember that earlier, I perhaps inadvertently irritated my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary. I assure her that I did so unintentionally, but it is very important that the legislation undergo considerable scrutiny not only in Committee but on Second Reading. It must do so because it is extremely important to secure the integrity of our borders and to police our ports of entry in one way or another, and we have not fulfilled that task adequately in recent times.
	I represent 14 miles of river frontage on the Thames estuary, the biggest part of which is the port of Tilbury—there are other wharves along that stretch—and I have seen the consequences of its being a serious port of entry. On Friday evenings, some 60 per cent. of the people who come to see me do so in relation to Home Office issues: papers being lost, immigration, refugee status and so on. It used not to be like that; the number of such cases has increased since I became a Member of Parliament. I feel passionately, as do many hon. Members, that we need to get things correct, and we are not doing so at the moment.
	When there was a Conservative Government and it was unfashionable to suggest a borders police, I advocated the idea, but it was dismissed by—I think—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Now, half the House of Commons is with me, but unfortunately it is the wrong half. I hope that after one more push, people might come to see the compelling logic of having such a dedicated police force.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker)—one of those people who are paid large sums of money and cannot say anything here—muttered to me in friendliness, sotto voce, "You're not suggesting that there should be 24-hour cover in all the ports around the United Kingdom, are you?" I say that what we want is the possibility of 24-hour cover. If we had a highly mobile and dedicated force with all the available technology, it would be possible, and it does not happen at present. That is the compelling logic.
	There is technology that allows containers to be screened, but by and large it operates in many key ports only between the hours of 9 and 5. The ports, however, are 24-hour operations. Although such technology is not available everywhere, it could be moved around. If we had a dedicated borders police—I prefer to call them police because people understand that term, but the terminology is not terribly important—they could have all the powers that we are vesting in the various people referred to in the Bill. They could pursue and detect, and work with Home Office, Scots and Irish forces to ensure that wrongdoing such as people-smuggling or the smuggling of illegal goods is combated both in and out of the ports; it has to be a two-way process. They would also be a great weapon against the potential for terrorism through our ports.
	I appeal to the Government to reflect on the matter, or at least to take on board the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who is unfortunately not in his place. He said that we should use this legislation as an opportunity to give powers to all the various agencies, so that they have interoperability. Immigration officers, customs and excise, the ports police—where they exist—the Home Office police forces and forces in Scotland would then have comparable powers.
	I might have misunderstood my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—she can clarify the matter when she speaks at the Dispatch Box—but she looked concerned or surprised when I told her of the following example. If a Kent or an Essex police officer has reasonable cause to believe that a person is an illegal immigrant, their instructions are that they must tell them—if they can convey the point; sometimes they use a card—to go to Lunar House, Croydon. That is not the way to combat illegal immigration.
	The port of Tilbury has a small dedicated police force. It does not have the critical mass of a national border police, who would have better technology and mobility, criminal investigation departments and forensic back-up, but it works very hard. One or two ports do have port police and they could be the model for a national force. Those local port police do their best. On 23 January, the Port of Tilbury police detained three immigrants at the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry, which remains part of the port of Tilbury but is outside the customs boundary fence. The police believed that the three had entered the UK on the Ostend ferry, which arrives at Tilbury twice a day. The three were taken to the port police station, and the immigration officer for the port of Tilbury was contacted. Two immigration officers attended the port police station, but when the facts were relayed to them, they informed the police officers that it was outside their remit, as the immigrants had been found outside the port boundary. The matter would have to be dealt with by immigration at Stansted airport.
	The Port of Tilbury police tell me that in the past other illegal immigrants whom they have found within the curtilage of the port have been dealt with promptly. They have either been repatriated or allowed to remain in the UK, under controlled conditions, while theircase was investigated. However, on the eve of the introduction of this legislation to the House of Commons it appears that the immigration service at Stansted—which I find unsatisfactory in several respects—is going the opposite way to Ministers. The Port of Tilbury police told me about an occasion on which nine immigrants were put on the ferry and sent back to Ostend, but that is not happening now.
	After the immigration people at the port of Tilbury said that the incident on 23 January was nothing to do with them, the understandably frustrated but diligent police officers contacted immigration at Stansted and informed it that three illegal immigrants had been taken into custody. After one and a half hours, the police were told that no immigration officers would attend and that the immigrants would have to be released. The Port of Tilbury police told me that they released the people following the receipt of a fax with those instructions.
	There is grave concern that the serious lack of co-ordination between the areas of jurisdiction of the immigration service is undermining the intentions of Ministers. I conveyed this story to the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality, who said, unreservedly, that it was unacceptable. The story buttresses my case for a border police who would deal with all such matters, so there would be no misunderstanding.
	I also became concerned when the Minister said that he intended to regionalise the immigration service. The estuary of the River Thames covers three Government regions: Greater London, the south-east and the eastern region. For some reason, I am in the same patch as Cambridge and Peterborough. If the Minister does intend to take that approach, I hope that he will, exceptionally, break the existing boundaries and ensure that the Thames estuary is in one patch. Otherwise, the confusion will remain and we will see repeats of the incident on 23 January.

Andrew MacKinlay: There is clearly a lack of leadership and proper management, too. The charge implicit in the hon. Gentleman's example is real. If there were a dedicated border police force with a proper chief constable, he or she would have command and control to deploy resources effectively around the United Kingdom. Such a force could carry out raids and then the bandits who exploit weak security at our ports would never be sure that a major exercise would not be mounted by a major police force. At present, we do not have the critical mass for that, so one of the attractions of a border police would be the ability to mount such operations.
	It was not entirely satisfactory that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality was unable to explain to the House why Scotland is exempt from clauses 1 to 4 and the provisions on forfeiture. The explanatory notes give no clue apart from an unamplified reference to the Sewel convention. The convention rightly states that this place will not legislate for powers or competences that have been delegated to the Parliament in Edinburgh. I understand that, but I was surprised to find that these matters are devolved. Although I accept that my judgment was wrong and that apparently there are some devolved matters relating to the Bill, I none the less expectedthe Minister to tell us that he had reached agreement with the Scottish Executive, who would introduce comparable legislation within the same time frame. That would have been welcome, but instead the Minister constantly refers to discussions with ACPO Scotland and vague discussions with an unnamed member of the Scottish Executive. If the Bill is necessary in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, why is it, or comparable legislation, not necessary in Scotland?
	The Minister said that there were only seven major ports in Scotland. They are more than major—they are mega-big. We all have an interest in ensuring that the same degree of integrity and security is applied at those ports as at Dover or Tilbury. We need UK symmetry in the application of immigration procedures at our ports.
	In response to the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Stewart Hosie), the Minister said that he would place information in the Library, but he did not say when. I want to see that information today, because a number of constitutional issues have been raised that it is our duty to understand. It is not sufficient to probe the Bill in Committee; it should be done on the Floor of the House, so I hope that the Minister will indicate either that the information is in the Library so that we can have a look at it or that he will clarify the position at the Dispatch Box. Why is it not necessary to have the same powers on the statute book of Scotland?

Andrew MacKinlay: I do not want to labour the point anymore. The rest of the House understands that the Minister clearly has not got the foggiest idea what he is talking about. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary tuts, but she or the Minister could get up to explain things to us. I am begging for clarity and information.
	I very much welcome some of the Bill, however. We have heard speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Dagenham (Jon Cruddas) and an intervention frommy hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who clearly indicated that we need to combat this wicked exploitation of people by bad employers. That is the root cause of the problem, and to an extent, it is one of the remedies to arresting the dreadful traffic and crime of people smuggling.
	It is also important that we put in a bid for sensitivity, because if the Bill is effective, it will reveal a new group of people who have no papers and whom we did not know about. Some people might or might not have had genuine cause to claim asylum, but they might never have done so. Once the legislation is in train, there will be an awful lot of very bewildered and frightened people in abject poverty and alone because they will have been smoked out. The remedy is not automatically to deport those people. Each case needs to be looked at sensitively.

Andrew MacKinlay: When that happens, it will be incumbent on Members on both sides of the House to be sensitive. I understand that the role of Opposition is to criticise the Government, and as a Government Member, I am sensitive when the criticism has some validity, but one of the problems is that the immigration service, at Stansted in particular, has played the numbers game.
	I noticed that my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said a few days ago in  The Independent how outraged he was about the way in which a very nice family had been treated by the immigration service. I know of similar circumstances caused by Stansted immigration service. At 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning, the heavies of the immigration service turned up in a style not dissimilar from that which operated in central Europe in the 1930s, to get a family of nine. The Minister might not like that, but I can substantiate it: that is a fact. Some people get aggravated if they are woken up at 6.30 by Mr. Plod, but I am talking about a family.
	All hon. Members have an obligation to ensure that we do not go for the easy way of meeting targets and figures. Finding a family of nine helps with the figures. The single man is mobile, by definition, and much more difficult for Stansted immigration to track down. We in the House—left and right—have a common zeal to ensure that we combat illegal immigration and that there is the full application of the law, but we are all playing a numbers game in our different ways, and some of the most innocent people are often hit hardest, or even if they are not innocent, they are treated in a way that is, in my view, unacceptable. A family of nine do not abscond. They are in their beds at 6 o'clock on a Sunday morning and it is wholly unacceptable for them to be subject to a raid at that time. I am pleased to have the opportunity of placing that view on the record in the House.
	Clause 45 enables the Bill to be enacted in the Isleof Man and the Channel Islands. That is not unimportant. Has the Minister for Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship had discussions with their Executives about the way in which the provisions should be implemented? All too often we forget about the diligent way in which the police and immigration services of those overseas territories deal with matters in all our interests.
	Reference is also made to the Republic of Ireland. When the Under-Secretary sums up, will she indicate whether there have been any discussions between the Government of the Irish Republic and the United Kingdom about how many people use the United Kingdom as a point of entry, coming here on visitors' visas and entering illegally into the Irish Republic, and how many people go to Dublin to enter illegallyinto the United Kingdom? I imagine that the ratio is 50:50, but that does not make the situation any more acceptable. Is there sufficient scrutiny on our common land border and sufficient intelligence-gathering to see how people play having the two jurisdictions in the one common travel area? I hope that that has been looked at.
	The hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) touched on another matter that I want to raise. We have all had experience of the rogues who rip off bewildered, frightened and almost penniless people. They pretend that they can get those people papers or some status in the United Kingdom. Not enough has been done to root those rogues out and bring them to court. If they are legally qualified, that should be pursued with the Law Society with a view to having them struck off. Whether they are legally qualified or not, there are too many of them committing criminal offences. I would have hoped that the immigration service or the Home Office, and the police service—perhaps if we had the co-ordinated police service that we wanted—could focus on that. It is an evil trade and encourages all the things to which we have referred in the House this afternoon.
	I hope that the Minister for Immigration, Nationality and Citizenship has not closed his mind on the national ports police and that he will take on board the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen that we should anyway give comparable powers to all the various officers in the agencies. I share the view expressed by the hon. Member for Dundee, East and the bewilderment that we have not already got many of the powers in the Bill. One wonders why the provisions have not been brought before the House before. That probably is the fault not of successive Ministers, but of the civil servants, whose names I do not know, but who could and should have flagged up these deficiencies many Bills ago. We would be somewhat ahead of the issue if they had done so. On that note, I wish the Bill well.

Philip Davies: Conservative party policy is that we will replace the Act with a Bill of Rights. In future, it would probably be worth the hon. Gentleman's while directing his questions on Conservative policy to Front-Bench Members. I speak from the Back Benches and represent my constituents, as opposed to always representing party policy.
	Will the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), clarify a point on veils when she responds to the debate? In a briefing to regional journalists the other week, the Home Secretary made a big point of saying that the Bill would deal with the issue of people escaping from this country disguised by a veil. It is difficult to see what element of the Bill would prevent that, unless it is the clause that says that an immigration officer
	"may search the individual for, and retain, anything that might be used to assist escape".
	That is the only part of the Bill that I can find that could relate to veils. Given that one of the suspects for the murder of Sharon Beshenivsky in Bradford fled the country disguised in a veil, my constituents would be interested to know whether the Bill deals with that issue.
	I understand that the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said that immigration officers already have the power to ask somebody to remove their veil. Well, we all have the power to ask people anything that we like; surely the power should be to insist that they remove the veil. I would be grateful if the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Enfield, North (Joan Ryan), clarified whether the power already exists, as most people think it should, or whether it is included in the Bill, as the Home Secretary said when he briefed regional journalists last week.
	I particularly praise the hon. Member for Keighley (Mrs. Cryer), who is a very brave lady when it comes to the issues that we are discussing. In the past, shehas bravely taken up many of the concerns raised today, and she is hugely respected, not only in her constituency but in mine, for all the work that she has done on the issue of forced marriages and immigration more generally. I certainly support her call to raise the minimum age at which people can be brought into the country for the purpose of marriage from 18 to 21. I also support her call to make it a requirement that people should be able to speak English before coming into the country, rather than sit a test once they have entered.
	That brings me to a big problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) made a great speech, but there was one part with which I disagreed. He celebrated the fact that 93 different languages were spoken in Peterborough. I think that we should not celebrate that, but should instead be very sorrowful about it, because I would much prefer us to all speak one language—the English language. That would do more to enhance community cohesion than having93 different languages spoken.

Philip Davies: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will heed your advice. I wish briefly to touch on the issue of asylum. In terms of numbers, asylum is not a big issue in the immigration debate; there are much bigger issues. However, I share many people's concerns about the failure to remove failed asylum seekers from the country, and the way in which that has undermined the system of asylum. We in this country have a proud tradition of looking after people who are fleeing persecution, and I hope that it will continue for many years to come, but it can only do so if there is a robust system in which people have faith.
	I certainly agree with the comments made by the right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) about the time that it takes to deal with many cases. I met some asylum seekers in Bradford yesterday, and I was appalled to learn that all the families that I met had been in the asylum system for between four and eight years. Whatever the rights and wrongs of their claim, that is an obscene amount of time in which to leave them in limbo, wondering what will happen to them. Some have fled terrible persecution. We should not allow such delays to happen.

Philip Davies: The hon. Gentleman may have a point and the hon. Member for Thurrock's point about soft targets is particularly relevant. In a case that had been going on for eight years, the person concerned had come to this country from France. I was always under the impression that people should be sent back to the first safe country they went to for their asylum application to be heard. I could not quite understand how, after eight years, someone was still being dealt with here, having made it clear that they made their first application in France.
	There is one elephant in the room that it would be impossible not to mention with regard to immigration the European Union. A huge amount of people are coming into this country perfectly legally from the EU, far more than the Government ever predicted. In terms of people coming from outside the EU, the Minister will agree that our border controls can only be as good as the border controls in the EU. If people get into the EU without any particular problem, it makes it easier for them to get from those countries into the UK.
	The excellent Speakout campaign has gained a lot of support across the country and has found that well over 80 per cent. support the view that Britain should get back control of its own borders. I would advise the Minister that if he really wishes to make a difference on immigration, we should get back our border controls rather than handing them over to the EU.

Philip Davies: If the hon. Lady spent more time in the Chamber and less time on television, she would know that I have long argued, both within this place and outside, for Britain to withdraw from the EU. I am perfectly happy to clarify that point and I thank her for giving me the platform to make it clear that I think we would be better off out of the EU.
	The problem of immigration is widespread and is a big problem for many of our constituents. It is no good burying our heads in the sands and pretending that it is not a problem. It is no good pretending, as the Minister would wish us to do, that everything is rosy in the garden and that we cannot even raise the concerns of those people who have voted for the BNP. We must reflect the legitimate concerns of our constituents, or we will see even more people voting for nasty, thuggish parties such as the BNP, something that I want to avoid.
	The issue is on our own hands. We have an opportunity to get those votes back from parties such as the BNP by having some robust and effective measures to deal with mass immigration into this country. I am so sorry that the Bill does not seem to go far enough to address those concerns, but I hope that we can make it more robust in Committee.

Keith Vaz: I was toying with the idea of abstaining on the Bill because of my concerns about it but, having listened to the hon. Member for Shipley (Philip Davies), I shall be enthusiastically supporting it. I found a number of the hon. Gentleman's comments most distasteful. He is right to raise concerns about why people vote for the BNP but I thought that he might have used the opportunity to condemn the BNP and all it stands for.

Keith Vaz: Indeed, Madam Speaker, and I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman took that opportunity. However, it is no good having a go at my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) for appearing on television. It is only because the hon. Gentleman is never asked to go on television, no doubt because of his views, that he has a go at her.
	I do not want to stray too far from the Bill and my concern is that here we are yet again debating immigration and listening to yet another Immigration Minister; a different one from when the last Immigration Bill was introduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and I, who have been in the House for 20 years, have probably attended every immigration Bill debate over that two-decade period. What concerns me is that despite the fact that we pass legislation, we have still not solved the problem that lies at the heart of the immigration and nationality directorate.
	We are not providing a good and efficient service, which is necessary to ensure that we deal with people's cases. As a result, the backlog increases, decisions are not taken, there is delay in processing cases, as the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson) and many other right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned during the debate, and we do not seem to be solving the basic problem. Passing yet another Bill and creatingyet another Act of Parliament will not solve the fundamental problem.
	The Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality is extraordinarily able. He was elected in a spectacular by-election in Birmingham. He has held a number of other ministerial offices and done so with distinction. If he and the current Home Secretary do not solve the problem that lies at the heart of IND, I do not think that any other Ministers could do so. They are able and have a commitment to deal with the system.
	The Home Secretary was right to tell the House and the public that he felt that IND was not fit for purpose. I have said that for many years, not just under the present Government, but as I pointed out to the hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green), under the previous Government. I know that he was not in the House then, but for the 10 years that I was in opposition, from 1987 to 1997, the situation in the Home Office was appalling. The backlog was twice or three times as great as it is now. There were sackfuls of unopened mail at IND. There is a systemic problem that needs to be solved, and I do not believe that it can be solved by legislation.

Keith Vaz: It is absolutely sustainable. I do not believe that immigration has caused this country any problems. The presence of the immigrant community has benefited Britain. There is an economic case for it. I am a product of that system, having come to this country as a first-generation immigrant. Legal and lawful immigration to Britain has created communities that have helped our country and made it, I believe, the best country in the world to live in. The recent arrival of the east European people, following the enlargement of the EU, has benefited our country enormously. It is therefore not right to say that immigration has caused problems.
	On the way in which the Government have dealt with IND, there is a commitment to act, but the problem is the way in which IND operates—how constituency cases are dealt with, how cases are processed and the speed with which they are processed. It is not enough for us to say to our constituents when they come to our surgeries that the backlog is getting smaller. I want this Minister to be the first Minister in 10 years to tell the House of Commons that the backlog has gone.
	The way to get rid of the backlog is not to move resources from IND to the Prison Service. It is madness that there is a proposal to cut the IND budget by 9 per cent. in order to increase the Prison Service budget. That just will not wash. We need sufficient resources to allow people of calibre and ability to be able to judge cases. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the civil servants who administer immigration policy; they are just demoralised. There are some fantastic people working in IND, but they are working in very difficult circumstances and there is a lack of leadership from the top of the management board as to the way in which things operate.
	I write at least 50 letters a week to a woman called Lin Homer. I have met her, and I am sure that she is a dedicated civil servant, just as she was a dedicated chief executive of Birmingham city council. The fact is, however, that Lin Homer and her colleagues—her deputy directors and the higher management of IND—are simply not solving the administrative problems that need to be solved. They should not write letters to our constituents telling them that it is the IND's ambition to address their problems and to give them a decision within 28 days, or that its target is that 70 per cent. of its cases are going to be solved within a 28-day period. Our constituents come to our surgeries clutching those pieces of paper, and they believe what they read. Many of those people have been waiting one or two years for a reply.
	At the same time as we ask people to go through the misery of waiting for a decision, we also ask them to pay fees. We ask them to pay for a service that we would not be satisfied with if it were provided by the private sector. An application for a work permit now costs more than £300. Do they get a decision quickly? On balance, if they apply from outside this country, no. The service inside the country is actually pretty good, but anyone who applies from abroad under the new scheme instituted by the previous Immigration Minister—known as managed migration—will have to wait a very long time.
	I know that my hon. Friend the Minister, representing a seat such as his in Birmingham, has a big constituency case load. I say to him in friendship that the only way to solve the problem in IND is to get people of talent into the service. He is giving a shadow agency the powers to get things done—not under the Bill—and creating a completely new agency. Moving the problems from the desk of the Immigration Minister and putting them on the desk of the chief executive of a new agency will not solve the problems that we face.
	There needs to be a fundamental review of the way in which the decision making process works. To be perfectly frank, when right hon. and hon. Members write to Ministers asking for meetings about difficult constituency cases, those meetings should be granted. In my 20 years in the House, I have written to Ministers of all political persuasions to ask for such meetings and those meetings have been granted. We need that ministerial focus. Create an agency by all means, but do not take away accountability to Members of the House or the Minister's ability to scrutinise those cases.

Keith Vaz: My hon. Friend is right. This situation has been made worse by the cuts in legal aid, which mean that good practitioners are coming out of legal aid, leaving citizens at the mercy of unscrupulous immigration advisers. People then come to our surgeries and expect us to sort out the problems.
	There are people of talent in the system. I urge the Minister to look at the way in which UK Visas is run. It has a better system than the Home Office: one writes a letter about a constituency case, which goes to the post abroad, and one gets a reply. One might not be happy with that reply but at least one gets a reply with information on which one can act As for the Home Office, one gets a reply from a deputy director saying that one must wait another six months or even longer for the case to be considered. For example, the family reunion cases, which the Minister's predecessor agreed to years ago, are still going through the system, and have not been dealt with.
	The Minister has the capacity, ability and personal charm to persuade people to make a difference in the way that they do their jobs. That takes resources, however, and it requires the right people. I urge him to consider some of the senior officials such as Carol Doughty in New Delhi or Mandy Ivemy in Bombay—directors of visa services who must deal with thousands of visa cases, and who are able to sort out the problems that are put before them and make decisions immediately. When one is operating on the basis of a right of appeal, that is so much better.
	I will concede to the Minister all that he is doing on border controls. I do not know the answer—I do not have a coastline surrounding Leicester, so I cannot say what that is like. He has done the research, and he tells me that we need the provisions. On customer service and the ability to deal with cases, however, he has lost me. To regain me, he must provide a better system that works.
	My next point is on liaison between Departments. In an Adjournment debate a few years ago, I raised the case of a constituent of mine who was killed by a foreign national who, before he went to court for the hearing, was given his passport back and allowed to return voluntarily to China. My constituent's parents were told about that after it had happened. They have therefore never had closure. The person who killed their son has never been tried in this country, and for all I know is back in this country as a visitor. The lack of liaison even between parts of the same Department is lamentable. If the Bill means better liaison, I support it. When my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies, I want her to assure me that the Bill will have that effect and that there is not another Bill coming to solve the problems that we have seen.
	My last point is on the European Union. We are an island—the hon. Member for Shipley would probably like to close the channel tunnel and stop direct flights from London to Paris, because he thinks that we can survive on our own; he is a Conservative MP, but that is not, of course, Conservative party policy. The fact is, however, that we need to work with our partners in Europe to combat illegal immigration. The whole Tampere II agenda, which became the Hague programme following European summit meetings, has been about countries working together. Of course, the Opposition and tabloid papers scream when we talk about giving up the veto on immigration, and the Government have not done that. The fact remains, however, that we can work with our European partners—short of giving up the veto, to make my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South-West (Mr. Davidson) happy—to ensure proper and adequate co-operation to prevent illegal immigration and the other problems addressed by the Bill.
	That will mean our Ministers going to European summit meetings and taking forward the Tampere agenda, which has lain dormant for far too long. Justice and Home Affairs is just as important as ECOFIN and all the other work in the European Union, as it is so complicated and it requires co-operation. I am not suggesting that we should have a European police force. We have Interpol, but are we using it as effectively as we should to do the kinds of things that it should do?
	I believe that my hon. Friends the Minister and the Under-Secretary have a willingness to sort this matter out. Both they and the Home Secretary are people of real talent. I believe that they want to make sure that the situation is improved. I plead with them not to come back to the House in six months' time to say that they need another Bill; they do not.
	What this Government need to do is to take a grip on the operation of the system to ensure that when the Immigration Minister starts to devolve IND, he consults right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House, and the community, so that he does not just move from Lunar house to Mars house in Birmingham, or from Apollo house to Jupiter house somewhere in the north of England, and the same problems go elsewhere. Let us try to solve the problems. It is about customer service and providing a good service for our constituents. If he does that, he will have done a real service to this country in his term as Immigration Minister.

Edward Garnier: The right hon. Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), my parliamentary neighbour, made a thoughtful and thought-provoking speech, although it was thought provoking in a way that was different from a speech made a little earlier. However, beyond all other speeches, I want to draw attention to the speech by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). I do not say this simply to annoy the Government, albeit that that is his purpose from time to time.
	I highlight the hon. Gentleman's speech because he demonstrated to us the purpose of being a Member of Parliament. Although we are elected on a party political platform, it is not our purpose to come here and abdicate one's responsibilities for holding the Government to account. It does not matter whether someone is a Labour Member of Parliament, a Conservative Member of Parliament or even a Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament, it is the job of us all, wherever we sit and from whichever party we gain our support, that we should constantly demand the Government to justify themselves. He did precisely that. Not for the first time, I salute him. Having drawn attention to his speech, perhaps uncomfortably for him and those around him, I hope that he will persuade the right hon. Member for Leicester, East to keep in his seat for a number of reasons, but in particular this evening, rather than allowing him to be provoked into voting for what is perhaps not an altogether satisfactory Bill.
	A number of themes have come through the debate, not all of which have had much direct connection with the Bill, but that does not necessarily matter because the issues discussed have been important. They include biometrics, the abuse of migrant workers in jobs and housing, people trafficking, the powers of immigration officers and the need for a unified national border police, what we are to do with foreign criminals and the extended issue of deportation generally, whether the Bill will work—and, perhaps equally as important, whether the Home Office will be able to make it work—and regulation. Those are the general themes highlighted by the debate.
	I am delighted that the Home Secretary has returned to the Chamber at this late hour. I was intrigued to see that the publicity-seeking Home Secretary wrote this article in  The Guardian saying:
	"If you renovate a house you start by taking the wallpaper off. Only then do you discover more problems...No one need tell me that there are problems in the Home Office. I know. That's why...I said parts of the Home Office were 'not fit for purpose'...I was sent to the Home office to do a job...But it isn't mission impossible. Judge me not on the challenges but on my response to them."
	The response that we had today is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Damian Green) said, the sixth Bill on immigration and asylum.
	I am not sure why the Bill is called the UK Borders Bill. It ought more properly to be called the immigration and passports Bill or the immigration and asylum Bill (No. 6), but perhaps that would give the game away—that we have had so much legislation from the Home Office, not just in immigration and asylum, but right across the ambit of its remit, but so little improvement. Member after Member has said this evening that what is wanted from the Government is effective administration, an efficient, politically motivated, strategic leadership of the Home Office and management of the issues with which it must deal. That has been said by Members on both sides of the House.
	No one pretends that those issues are easy, particularly this aspect of public policy, but I do not believe that anyone, having listened to the Minister—an engaging and bright Minister—

Edward Garnier: I think the Chairman of the Education and Skills Committee can go to the back of the class.
	The Minister gave a perfectly rational and reasonable explanation of the Government's policy, but no matter how good his motives are, the machinery with which he is trying to implement that policy is flawed, because the Government are unfit for purpose. We have here a Bill that is designed to sneak corrections to the Identity Cards Act 2005 through the back door. We have here a Bill that is designed to persuade us that, by introducing biometric passports and by introducing biometrics to immigrants' residential status documents, the Government are about to achieve something wonderful. But we all know that the Government have changed their mind time after time on biometrics.
	We now know—because the Minister admitted it in a written statement just before Christmas—that instead of one great computer, which I dare say the Government now accept would be unsafe, open to hacking and incapable of providing the service that it was designed to provide, they propose to establish three separate vast computers, which will no doubt fail to communicate with each other, fail to be produced according to budget, and fail to perform the task that the Government think they have set them.
	The Government have mishandled the whole issue of biometrics. There is not a Conservative Member, and I dare say there is not a Labour Member either, who disagrees with the notion that there should be biometric passports. That means that when we present our passports at the port of entry, an immigration officer can read the information contained in the chip and verify our identity. Where we—Conservative Members, at least—part company with the Government is on the use of the biometric system on the identity card as a key to that great national computer, the national identity register. Here we see the Government at sixes and sevens: they really do not understand what they wish to derive from identity cards and the biometric system.
	I mentioned regulations earlier. It is clear that, like the Identity Cards Act, the Bill is no more than a Christmas tree on which the Government will hang as yet undrafted, unseen regulations. The scope of the registration regulations is extremely broad, andthe bulk of the detail will be in regulations made by the Secretary of State. We need only look at the Bill to see that the Secretary of State will have power to make regulations that may include open-ended obligations. For example, there will be regulations requiring the use of a document when a question arises about a person's status in relation to nationality or immigration. A person producing that document will be required to provide other information for comparison, and thereis potentially unlimited scope in regard to the information that can be required. Regulations will make provision as to the content of documents that include non-biometric information and allow for the document to be combined with other documents. All those powers are handed over to the Secretary of State—powers that are untrammelled by detailed knowledge of the wording of the regulations.
	The regulations can require the document holder to notify the Secretary of State at any time stipulated by regulations—further regulations—and require the surrender of the document or any other documents. Sanctions for failure to comply with any of the regulations can carry be severe. While the financial penalty is limited so far to a £1,000 fine, more drastic steps such as the cancellation of leave to remain in the UK can also be imposed.
	Clause 8 provides a direct link between the information contained in the document and the information that will be held on the national identity register created by the Identity Cards Act. That allows regulations to permit the use of information for specified purposes not relating to immigration, and provides that there is no need to destroy information if it is retained in accordance with another enactments. Therefore, the scope of the regulations is extremely broad. They can theoretically force any non-European economic area person to provide unlimited information for unlimited— [Interruption.]

Joan Ryan: May I, too, express my gratitude for an informed and lively debate in the Chamber? Immigration is a subject that always attracts a great deal of attention, both in this Chamber and the other place, because of its bearing on the economy and on society as a whole. The Bill contains measuresthat are intended to help us better control immigration from abroad, at the border and in-country. Additional powers are needed to tackle the challenges posedby increasing global migration, which is part of globalisation. Those challenges include an increase in organised immigration crime, either from abroad through people trafficking or in-country through the illegal labour market.
	A greater number of people are coming here legally, too, so it is essential that we have the right powers and systems in place, as well as the right technology to manage them. When they are no longer entitled to be here, we must be able to ensure that they leave. The Bill therefore focuses on strengthening our borders. That is not simply a case of providing immigration officers at ports with extra powers, as it involves removing the incentives to enter the UK illegally in the first place. We have looked at specifically targeting people who abuse our hospitality as well as those who seek to profit from illegal immigration. The Bill includes tough measures to crack down on illegal working and to root out fraudulent claims for benefits through the introduction of biometric immigration documents for individuals subject to immigration control, as well as extra powers for immigration officers. We are improving cross-Government working with information-sharing powers that will help us to detect fraudsters and illegal workers.

Joan Ryan: I do not intend to accept interventions at the moment, because many Members have made valuable points, not least the hon. Gentleman himself, and I should like to deal with some of those points.
	We are living in an age in which the world is becoming smaller because of more accessible and affordable travel routes. In response, we need to step up our border controls to cope with increasing demands. We want to protect the public and their interests, so we must provide a fair and effective immigration system in which immigration is controlled and the immigration laws are enforced and therefore respected. We want to take advantage of the increase in global migration, but in a controlled way that is right for Britain. We want the right people to come here to work and study—people who will contribute positively to our society and economy. Equally, we need to ensure that we stem the harmful effects of illegal migration, which is why the measures in the Bill are important.
	This piece of legislation is part of a wider package of measures. A great deal of work has already been done to bring the immigration system into the 21st century. We have moved our border controls to the continent, and we have introduced a global network of border advisers. We are introducing a points-based system to ensure that the right people come here to work and study. In July 2006, we undertook a comprehensive review of the immigration and nationality directorate, publishing proposals for the future of immigration management in the UK. We have consulted widely with the public, the police, our partners in local government, the NHS, the Department for Work and Pensions, and the business community. That has proved invaluable in identifying the powers needed by the border and immigration agency when it starts work in April to strengthen the border and better enforce immigration laws. I hope that that gives some comfort to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz), who was very concerned about whether there will be any more legislation. This Bill, in conjunction with moving to agency status and the enforcement strategy that will be introduced in the near future, should address the concerns that he raises. This is a package of measures.

Joan Ryan: I will give way after I have made a little more progress, as I want to make some points.
	The hon. Member for Ashford (Damian Green) did not say anything very positive about the Bill, but he was positive towards the end of his comments about measures on trafficking and facilitation. I am pleased to have his support on that, and I believe that there is cross-party support for tackling that obnoxious, heinous and damaging crime. Overall however, the hon. Gentleman's comments were not terribly positive, and he certainly was not positive about measures that have already been taken. Annual asylum applications are at their lowest level since 1993. A majority of initial decisions are now taken within eight weeks. In 2005, 17,000 illegal immigrants were stopped crossing the channel and 30,000 at airports around the world. I am sure that he will remember that the measures were not supported by him or his party. Therefore, they should look carefully at the well thought through measuresin the Bill, and they should support them if theytruly believe what they say about strengthening our borders.

Joan Ryan: I can indeed give that assurance, and I can say to him that we will provide even greater powers for the regulator. We, too, think that that is very important.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), made some telling points, many of which I am sure will be discussed in Committee. We agree very much with him that employers who are abusive, and employers and agencies who act illegally, should be subject to the full force of the law. They provide a pull-factor, drawing people into this country.
	My right hon. Friend and a number of other Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), expressed concerns about the possible consequences when enforcement takes place and the new powers bite. They are right to raise concerns about whether we will put strategies in place to deal with the consequences of increasing enforcement. I assure them that that enforcement and the advent of the biometric immigration document will be rolled out on an incremental basis, that we will ensure that we deal with the consequences of increasing enforcement—which will be the turning up of people who are here illegally and working illegally—and that we will address all the issues surrounding that. That is the right thing to do.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen also raised the possibility of aligning the powers of Revenue and Customs staff and immigration officers. As my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality pointed out in his opening remarks, we see that as an important step in the right direction, and it will make a difference. My right hon. Friend also asked about the fraudulent use of EU documents. I am sure that he is aware that that is covered by the Identity Cards Act 2006, which makes it an offence to possess an illegal document or to intend to use a false immigration document, including EU identity cards. I hope that that gives him some reassurance.
	Through the measures in the Bill, it is our intention to create a more visible presence at our border. An important part of that is giving immigration officers at ports the powers to detain individuals who are the subject of an arrest warrant or liable to arrest by a police constable. It is essential as we move forward that all agencies at the border are working together to achieve a common aim: protecting the public not just from illegal immigration, but from the threat to our national security.
	The hon. Member for Rochdale (Paul Rowen), who spoke for the Liberal Democrats, asked why we have yet to consult on the illegal working measures in the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. We will consult on them this year—I thought that he might know this—before introducing the civil penalty scheme. In fact, we have brought forward that consultation by a year, which he will doubtless welcome as they are important provisions that will help us to bear down on illegal working. They will also make a significant difference as our cross-Government enforcement strategy is introduced and starts to bite. As we move forward, it is essential that all these agencies work together, for the reasons that I outlined.
	The Bill also includes important measures to tackle facilitation and people-trafficking, to which a number of Members have referred. Those profiting from the misery of others will no longer be able to hide abroad. As soon as a known trafficker comes to the United Kingdom, we will be able to arrest them. Alternatively, we will have the power to track them down abroad and to extradite them to face prosecution here. I am pleased that we have support throughout the Chamber for these measures. We are all conscious, as we move toward the 200th anniversary of the abolition of slavery, that this is slavery by any other name.
	I want to clarify what my hon. Friend the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Nationality said about issuing biometric documents to people aged under 16, just to be absolutely sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, who asked about under-16s, understands the information therein. Biometric immigration documents will be issued to under-16s as proof of their immigration status, and they will contain a facial image. We are still considering at what age the requirement for fingerprints will apply. Discussions are under way in the EU regarding at what age children should have their fingerprints recorded; we currently record the fingerprints of asylum seekers from the age of five. I want to reassure my hon. Friend that these junior biometric immigration documents cannot then be designated as ID cards. He will know that the Identity Cards Act 2006 applies to people aged 16-plus. I hope that that clarification is helpful to him.
	The biometrics measures are indeed a substantial and important part of this Bill, along with the enforcement measures. The introduction of the biometric immigration document as an enforcement mechanism and the new powers for immigration officers will help us better to tackle illegal working and immigration crime. It is essential that front-line staff have the right powers to act swiftly when confronted with someone committing an immigration offence. Over recent years, this aim has progressed, and the measures in the Bill go one step further in allowing immigration investigations to be carried out independently of other agencies. The Bill is a key element in delivering these improvements, and I commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read a Second time.

That the draft Road Traffic (Northern Ireland) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 18th December, be approved. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuantto Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

That the draft Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections) (Amendment) Order 2007, which was laid before this House on 8th January, be approved. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuantto Standing Order No. 118(6) (Delegated Legislation Committees),

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuantto Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

That this House takes note of European Union DocumentNo. 14871/06 and Addenda 1 and 2, draft Regulation establishing the European Institute of Technology; and supports the Government's view that while the Proposal will potentially provide a means of strengthening innovation and competitiveness, a number of issues still need to be addressed before the Government can support this Proposal. —[Mr. Michael Foster.]
	 Question agreed to.
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuantto Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Eu-china Relationship

Simon Hughes: I am particularly grateful that you have allowed me the opportunity to hold an Adjournment debate on this subject, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for being present. She has worked for the local authority in Southwark and for the Royal College of Nursing and I hope that I will not embarrass her by saying that she is still a Southwark resident when she is in London. I know that she will be concerned and will understand the concern about these issues. I am particularly grateful to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for being present. She is one of five local MPs, of whom I am also one. The right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham(Ms Harman) is another, as is the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), who sends her apologies. She wished to here, but cannot be for family reasons. The right hon. Member for Streatham (Keith Hill) is the other. All of us, across the party divide, are concerned about the issues that I have the privilege of raising and have raised them personally with the Secretary of State for Health and the Ministers of State. The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport worked at the Maudsley hospital and therefore has direct experience, as well as constituency-relevant experience, as do we all.
	I want to pay tribute to three other groups of people. The first is all the staff who work in mental health services in south London, who do an amazingly courageous and professional job. Without them, many people who are alive today would be neither alive nor as well as they are. The second is all the campaigners who have risen up to take part in the democratic process, perfectly properly and lawfully, wanting to be sure that their voice has been heard. One of them, a friend of mine for many years, is Stan Hardy. He is over 85 and, feeling that this is something that he wanted to do, he has been given a new lease of life. I pay tribute to such people, who could have been sitting in their armchairs but have decided that mental health services are important enough for them to stir themselves. Some are service users, some are families or friends of users and some have never used mental health services.
	The third group, which is unusual—I do not think that I have paid such a tribute recently—is the staff of our local paper, the  South London Press, which we share with other south London boroughs. Its editor clearly decided that this was an issue that she wanted to put on the agenda. As she told us tonight, at the meeting that we held before we came here, this is an issue that has had an unparalleled response from the public and on which the paper has continued to campaign strongly and determinedly.
	I say to the Minister of State that we are here with all that support behind us. As I said to the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, whom I met just before the debate, I will not be able to do justice to the case that those groups have made to us because it not only spans the NHS planning system, complicated statistics and a long history, but includes the personal experiences of people who have been very near the edge.
	This is about people, not systems, and I want to share with the House two personal reflections that I hope will help. Like any MP who does their job properly I find that many people come to me with mental health issues. Somebody came to see me a few months ago because he had got into terrible debt, and despite all the advice he had received, he had not been able to get out of it and the debts were piling up. He suffered from bipolar dysfunction. In the end, somebody suggested that he came to see his MP. I was able, with the help of the companies concerned, effectively to get rid of his financial problem. Of course, people who suffer from mental illness do not necessarily put it behind them for ever or even for a long time; it can come back again and again. Not long ago, that person presented again, to a doctor in our borough. The doctor could not at that moment deal with him herself, so she sent him to the Maudsley emergency clinic where, she knew, he would get immediate and appropriate treatment. I am here because people such as that man, and people whom we know in our families, our circle of friends and our communities, have terrible struggles with mental illness and we have in our part of London the national flagship service for dealing with mental illness.
	It is an odd coincidence—I did not know this until a few days ago—that it was a 100 years ago this year that Henry Maudsley gave the money to London county council for the land for the Maudsley hospital. The war intervened, and it was not built until after the war. The hospital and, on the adjacent site, the Institute of Psychiatry, are national flagships—that is the phrase that has been used—in the treatment of and research into mental illness. My brother worked there for a while and, as I say, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport worked there. Both institutions have fantastic reputations.
	I am here because there is a real concern that at least one, if not two, of the elements of that set of services, the Maudsley emergency clinic and the Felix Post service for the elderly, which includes day care, could be lost when they need not be and when there is not an adequate alternative. I want to make the case for them. I hope that the Minister of State will be able to say to us that they will not, as is planned, close in a matter of weeks but that there will be a reappraisal to take into account the huge number of serious arguments that I, among others, keep hearing from the users, the doctors, the consultants, the nurses, the staff, the unions and many others with an interest. People have been willing to speak out, even though they risked their jobs by doing so, because they feel so strongly about the subject. I hope that the Minister will recognise the importance of what they are saying.
	I want to add two or three points to put the matter in context, but I am conscious that this is a short debate. The Minister will know the background figures, but the most recent parliamentary answers show that, in the last year for which we have figures, there were just short of 200,000 admissions to national health service hospitals in England under mental illness specialties. I asked the Library for the figures, and according to the best estimate that it could give, 250,000—a quarter of a million—people a year in England and Wales are admitted to hospital because of mental illness. One in four people suffers from mental health problems at some stage in their life, but in Southwark the rates are higher than average, as the Minister knows. The London-wide suicide rate is about five people in 100,000, but the Southwark rate is nearly eight in 100,000.
	The Minister may not know this, but I have discovered that, according to all the expert evidence, Southwark and Lambeth have the highest level of psychosis in the country, and probably the world. I am no expert on such matters—I am a layperson—but people have shown me the evidence and the statistics, and the evidence is not just based on presentation and anecdote. A combination of factors is responsible. They have to do with the urban community, deprivation and poverty, and the introduction of large groups of immigrants over the decades and centuries, some of whom are from communities in which there is a particularly high prevalence of mental illness. It is the combination of those factors in communities such as ours that is responsible. We are here to argue for a service that caters for not just those people, but for people outside Lambeth and Southwark too.
	It is not usual to find a 24-hour mental health emergency clinic in this country; in fact, it is unusual—it is the exception, not the rule. It is like those other unusual things, the beacons of excellence. The emergency clinic has been here for 50 years, and people from other parts of London and beyond are sometimes pointed in its direction by the police or friends. Homeless people, who have heard of it, are sent there, by doctors who cannot cope, or by family. The service is a bit like the Samaritans, but with a face. One of my parents has worked for the Samaritans for many years, and they did and do a fantastic job. The Maudsley has a telephone hotline, too, but it also has a dedicated space, open 24 hours a day and 365 days a year, where a person can be seen by doctors and nurses immediately, and where they are safe. It is a refuge. It has a waiting area, but it also has separate rooms, all of which are private and confidential, where people can be seen.
	Budget cuts have been forced on the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, which is a four-borough trust, including Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham and Croydon. Some £8 million is to be taken out of the trust's budget by Southwark and Lambeth, and as a result, the financial pressure is on, so the trust has to look for other services to cut. If it were not for that pressure, we might not be holding this debate today. It did not have to decide to cut the mental health service, but as a result of that pressure and other factors, it decided that the service should be cut.

Andrew Pelling: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and will be very brief. I am pleased to support him in this debate because, after all, the Maudsley is a place not only of professional excellence, but of financial excellence, and it is a great shame that we had to turn to the Maudsley to make reductions. I am keen to support him, because as a result of the financial pressures, there have been the first rumblings about service reductions in Croydon. I applaud him for bringing the issues to the House's attention.

Simon Hughes: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
	I will not lecture the Minister on the finances of the health service because although the Govt have greatly improved many parts of the health service, this is not about costs and budgets but about retaining the service. It is not even about the site as much as it is about the service. It is about making sure that there is somewhere to go when one needs it.
	I have watched the huge improvement in the home treatment services and I understand that lots of people need someone who gives support during the four, five or six weeks of a crisis. Those involved do a brilliant job. However, there are some people who, in the middle of the night, at the weekend or on a bank holiday—when at present there is no home treatment service—cannot be dealt with at home. They do not want to stay at home and they need to leave; home is where they are imprisoned and they need to escape.
	At that moment, such people will in future be asked to go across the road to King's college hospital's accident and emergency service. King's has improved; it is a great hospital. The A & E unit is greatly improved; I was there the other day. But it has already outgrown what it was planned to cater for, and I promise that it could not cope physically with both the physical ailments that come through the door and with the mental health ailments.
	If someone is coming in on the edge of suicide, terribly deranged, very violent and psychotic, will they be helped by being next to a person coming in from a car smash or a fireman with an axe in his head? Will that help to calm that person? There are only two rooms in King's A & E with doors, not curtains. Is it appropriate for those people to be looked after literally under the same roof, however brilliant the staff are? If so, is it appropriate for the person to be shown to a corner for mental health patients? Is that not reinforcing the stereotypes that people have about mental health?
	The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, her hon. Friends and mine are arguing that we need a dedicated space and refuge that is always available and that is, as it were, supported by the experts. All the evidence from nurses and doctors is that we cannot assume that we can bring in people who are not on site at the last minute, or that we can contain the violent people and then take them over the road, with security people, to the Maudsley. There are some inappropriate outcomes; on some occasions, people who cannot be treated when they need to be go off and either risk taking their own lives or, equally badly, risk taking the lives of others by their uncontrollable behaviour.

Simon Hughes: Politicians such as myself, the hon. Gentleman and the Minister are involved but a lot of the people involved in the issue are not politicians, and people said tonight that they had never been involved in party politics before but had been involved in community issues for 50 years. There is no party issue here; it is about how we can come together to take things forward.
	The letter from the Secretary of State on 12 January followed the decision by both Lambeth and Southwark councils that this was the wrong road to go down. The scrutiny committees of both councils and the joint council scrutiny committee looked into the matter and said that they wanted the service to be kept. The Members of Parliament have all made that view clear.
	The proposal is that there should be a transfer over a matter of weeks, with the Maudsley emergency clinic probably closing by the end of April. The poor manager and his staff who are running it are in a terrible position because they have to do the bidding of their NHS masters, but they know the pressure from the community. The idea is that their work will be picked up by the service over the road, which is not ready and will not be ready for at least a year. Even if the rebuilding took place, it still would not have the facilities.
	The Minister may have been in the House last Wednesday when the hon. Member for Vauxhall put a question to the Prime Minister, who said that he would speak to the Secretary of State for Health about the matter. The Secretary of State for Health was in Southwark at another place the other day, and was asked by campaigners in support of the Maudsley whether she would review the issue, and she said she would be happy to reconsider the matter. After the debate I will be happy to let the Minister and the Department have all the representations that I have received from nurses and doctors, the Royal College of Nursing and so on.
	I ask the Minister to take back to the Secretary of State a request to stop the clock, so to speak. It is fair to say that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the other Members of Parliament and I ask for a moratorium—a pause while we work out an acceptable way forward with the community, the users, their families, the clinicians and the practitioners.
	I end with this proposition: if a mental health service exists to stop people going over the edge, it must have the confidence of the public. If it has the confidence of the public, they will use it. Yes, numbers may go up, but that will be a sign of success because people are using the service. I have been in the House 24 years this month. I have been told that there is no more important subject than this. It is potentially a life and death issue. I know the Minister understands that, and I do not say it as blackmail or to be over-heavy.
	I heard on Saturday that I had lost another friend to suicide. I have lost friends in the past, and I have seen family and friends nearly go down that road or suffer badly from depression. We all have that experience. This is about saving lives, and it cannot be the best politics to press ahead with a decision that does not have the confidence of the community or any of their representatives, when we could have a better solution if we just sought to agree it in a way that gave confidence. I hope the Minister will respond positively, and I hope we can save a 24-hour clinic service on the Maudsley site or nearby to do the fantastic work in the future that it has done for the past 50 years, which has literally been the salvation of hundreds, if not thousands, of people.

Rosie Winterton: I congratulate the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) on securing the debate. It is clearly a matter of great concern to him and his constituents, as I know it is to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. I know that both Members have had meetings with the Secretary of State for Health about the matter.
	I join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the many people who have worked so hard to make improvements to mental health services. Some have dedicated their lives to that work. I recognise the importance of the community wanting to improve those services, which is clearly an issue in the present case. Too often, mental health services are not considered part of the mainstream. The community is sending an important message that they want to see real improvements and to ensure that the best services are available.
	The hon. Gentleman was right to highlight the importance of early intervention services for people who are starting to experience the first symptoms of psychosis. Many such teams have been established across south London. They reduce the risk of people reaching crisis point and having to be admitted to hospital at a later stage. They can often help people to get back into work more quickly, if that is appropriate, and they can generally improve the quality of people's lives.
	A network of home treatment teams has also been established across London. An important part of the reform and modernisation of mental health services is that, if possible, we try to treat people at home who might otherwise be admitted, or who have been admitted but might have had to stay in hospital longer if the home treatment service were not available. We are trying to stop the revolving door syndrome, in which people are discharged from hospital, become unwell and have to be readmitted. That is the general direction of travel, and I am pleased that extra investment has gone into those services, which, together with the dedication and commitment of the staff, have made a real difference.
	I would now like to turn to the issue of the closure of the emergency clinic at the Maudsley hospital. As the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich and West Norwood know, the Secretary of State made a number of statements in her reply to the Lambeth and Southwark joint health scrutiny committee about how she wanted the proposals to go forward. She tried to respond to the concerns set out by the committee in its referral letter.
	The Secretary of State obviously took views from the local NHS, from Department of Health officials and from the national clinical director for mental health, while acknowledging that the views of stakeholders and others had been put forward by the joint committee. She concluded that the closure of the emergency clinic would be in line with the mental health national service framework and other departmental policy, because it focused on meeting the needs of service users primarily through strengthened community provision and accident and emergency provision. The hon. Gentleman will know that that provision involves 24-hour access to emergency assessment and treatment, and that, as far as possible, there should be proper crisis teams in place.
	I should also stress that the Secretary of State agreed with the committee that the other elements of the local mental health crisis system need to be sufficient to meet the needs of mental health service users, in the absence of the emergency clinic. Local stakeholders need to be confident that this is the case, particularly in relation to local A and E services, which the committee and other local stakeholders highlighted as a specific concern. It has become absolutely clear that there is a commitment that, when the clinic closes, there will be 24/7 cover across Lambeth and Southwark.
	The Secretary of State has welcomed the fact that the local NHS has strengthened its proposals, after the referral by the joint scrutiny committee, to create a designated space at King's college hospital, adjacent to the A and E unit, which is across the road from the emergency clinic, to provide a safe and segregated area for mental health service users requiring assessment. I also understand that NHS London has agreed to provide capital funding of £6 million to enable the proposed changes to be put in place. In addition, I am informed that the Southwark and Lambeth primary care trusts are going to commission a wide range of mental health and 24-hour crisis mental health services of a high standard. The Secretary of State wants those proposals to be tested and agreed locally through a robust implementation plan, as the hon. Gentleman said, with input from key stakeholders, to ensure a smooth transition following the closure of the emergency clinic.

Rosie Winterton: I met the chief executives of the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust and Southwark PCT about their plans for implementation. I was advised by them that closing the clinic would enable the trust to direct resources—clinical staff as well as financial resources—where it feels that they can most benefit patients. The local NHS also thinks that the current system of crisis care is quite complex and confusing and needs to be clearer for patients. In particular, I am told that the clinic's facilities are not designed for people with complex problems who perhaps need to stay overnight while awaiting further assessment, as there is inadequate space and a lack of privacy and dignity. The walk-in facility is sometimes closed because people must stay in the clinic overnight. The trust thinks that that is not good enough.
	An important part of providing people with effective care is getting a clear, written plan of care agreed between health professionals and patients, focusing on what to do when somebody is experiencing a mental health crisis, what the individual's trigger-point symptoms for a crisis are, what help is available and how to get it. I am informed that the trust is going through plans for every person who has used the clinic in the past year to ensure that that is in place.
	As I have said, extra investment will be made available. I am conscious of the point made about reassurance, and I will refer to the Secretary of State, the SHA and the PCT the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport about the transition process. I hope that that will allow us to move forward and give people the confidence that they are asking for. It is important that we move forward with the plans in consultation with local stakeholders to ensure that replacements for the clinic meet the needs of patients and the public in the area.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Adjourned accordingly at twelve minutes toEleven o'clock.